Fallen Angels – Behind The Scenes Of Robbert Van Den Broeke Part II

Unravel the beautiful face, smile and voice of a fallen angel, because he will deceive you.

 

Content

Short recap
After the arrest
Farewell to Enrico en Janny Post
Further 2016
Robbert’s “paranormal” extravagances in 2016
Start bizarre clips in Fall 2016
Other strange mailers
The year 2017
Videos and Audio “Highlights”:
— 
Robbert is having a baby/(with) Leydi Figueroa
— Robbert is mad as hell
— Stan, Rens Hendriks and the scientific research of Gerding and Van Egmond
Nancy Talbott’s setback and death Sandra Reemer
Footnotes
Expression of gratitude

Short recap

Robbert van den Broeke- Arrest

/// Wikipedia version June 6, 2017 by me, just a few sentences from previous contributor ///

On January 6, 2016, Van den Broeke was arrested for alleged threat. There were seven reports, although more than seven people were actually threatened. According to various sources in the media, the people pressing charges were: Liesbeth van Dijk, Emile Ratelband, Ans Markus, Henk Verhaeren, Rinke Jacobs, Jan Willem Nienhuys en Bert Brussen.1 The by now American Constantia Oomen who was/is one of Robbert van den Broeke's main victims, attempted to report in the Netherlands from the United States but failed to succeed because of her absence on Dutch territory. She did file a complaint at the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

An example of some other people who were affected severely (Colin Andrews) or to a lesser degree (Andy Russell) by the hate mail of Robbert van den Broeke were the internationally known crop circle expert Colin Andrews2 and also crop circle expert Andy Russell3 and Viola Holt.4

Van den Broek's house was searched and he was under arrest for six days in an Amsterdam detention cell. Robbert van den Broeke's friend Stan Pluijmen was officially co-accused, among other things, due to a leaked conversation in possession of local broadcaster Omroep Brabant, that reveals the demeaning way Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen talk about Irene Moors and Constantia Oomen. “I would like to kick her into a coma with steel noses.”5 His lawyer denied the threats and claimed his email box and Facebook page were hacked.6

My last update was dated February / March 2016  and covered the two hectic months of Robbert van den Broeke’s arrest and the interview that Robbert van den Broeke gave to local broadcaster Omroep Brabant  on February 10, 2016, in which he confessed  that it was indeed he and Stan Pluijmen who were discussing Irene Moors and myself in an almost satanic manner7

After the arrest

This update covers the period between this and the previous update. The day that Broadcaster Omroep Brabant published their intrusive report about Robbert van den Broeke, February 20, 2017 and June 24, 2017, the publication date of this update. Google Gmail tells me that at this time I received 222 emails from Stan Pluijmen (excluding his mails using a pseudo, because then there would be more) and 53 from his friend Robbert van den Broeke.

Indeed, for the total first-reader of my blog (s): the (now hateful rather than simple “hate”) mails did not stop after the arrest.

When I received their mails exactly, can be seen in the hate mail charts. To me, these charts have been very helpful, because the mail chronology helps me to keep everything in check. This indeed is a confusing story if you do not keep your head cool.

I still call the charts hate mail charts, because I didn’t ask for their emails and they never cease to cause (some) anxiety. The real gruesome hatemails with severe death threats (whether or not by means of hit men threats) , coarse curses, photos of beheadings and dismembered corpses and faeces are not coming anymore (I say cautiously). Apparently, the arrest had made some impression on “Team Robbert van den Broeke”.

After Van den Broeke’s days in detention, the very severe death threats and hate mail were replaced by weird mail with lots of various attachments.  I not only received them from Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen, but from other mail identities too; from people clearly intimately involved in the case.  So intimately involved that the boundaries between these people and Robbert and Stan were no longer clear, until I concluded that these people were the same as Stan Pluijmen or at least in close contact with Robbert and Stan. Hopefully you can still follow me.

Therefore,  I also included the “Anne Kuiters“, “Micha Romijn“, “Sander de Graaf” and “Mieke Veen” mails in the hate mail tables of 2017. The explanation about these four people follows a little further in the blog.

Farewell to Enrico and Janny Post

Back to the most unnerving Robbert van den Broeke months: January and February 2016. On February 14, 2016, Robberts Dutch promoterJanny Post passed away. And the week before, on February 7, 2016, Robbert had lost another important friend, Enrico , who had helped him with his English affairs and his website.

Moreover, Enrico, who knew he would soon die, had chosen a photo with Dave Haith to appear on Robbert’s camera as “proof” of Robberts “paranormal” gift and of course: the afterlife. Which photo was chosen was not communicated to Robbert. According to Colin Andrews, the photo of Enrico has never appeared in the “paranormal” pictures of Robbert van den Broeke.8

Text on website Colin Andrews

Further 2016

In addition, in February 2016, Robbert van den Broeke’s best buddies Stan Pluijmen and Alan Sieradzki (now: Alan Pluijmen, who married Stan) went abroad, to Malaga, Spain. Probably nobody will deny that Robbert van den Broeke himself was in a difficult time of his life.

Stan Pluijmen explains why he left for Malaga:

(Translation: “Yes, I am in Malaga, Constantia. That was planned for a long time ago already with Alan. After your delusion that I had imitated Robbert with a voice actor, I just had enough of it all. All that injustice.”) 

The police had interrogated and detained Robbert van den Broeke for six days, and the possibility to receive a similar treatment didn’t sit well with Pluijmen.  Indeed, he was officially co-accused in this hate and threatening case and the idea of the police interrogating and detaining him too, was not at all far-fetched. At least seven people had reported.

The reason he left for Malaga thus seemed to be caused/promoted by a mistake on my part. I suggested in a short update blog that he had imitated Robbert van den Broeke about Irene Moors and me with a voice actor. In other words, I did not believe that Robbert himself was on the leaked tapes. At that time, I’d psyched myself out so much about the Robbert van den Broeke gang, that I did not see it as clear anymore. But I really believed this and Stan felt that I was serious about this, and apparently was in shock that he was suspected of having backstabbed his mate Robbert. My mistake was probably something good, because it made the outside world clear that there was really something going on with Stan Pluijmen’s share in the whole. I removed this erroneous assumption when some skeptical friends convinced me that I was mistaken. And later, Robbert’s confession confirmed the authenticity of the leaked tapes. By then, Stan had already fled and he would stay away for a year.

I will only touch briefly on what was mailed to me in the past year. For some people, it’s hard to understand what exactly is the relationship between Robbert van den Broeke, Stan Pluijmen and myself, but I’m the unsolicited recipient of very many email messages with attachments in the form of pictures, photo shots, audio and video clips, by Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen.

I report on all this on my Genverbrander10 account, which regularly results in Stan’s reactions by mail. Robbert seems to be less logical responding and mails according to his own moods. I suspect they send this to make me mad and to intimidate me, to involve me, and out of sheer madness and craziness. Stan is even more fanatic than Robbert in terms of mails.

Part of public opinion seems to be, that I should have just blocked their mail, but this is simply not what I have in mind. If they want to email me all this stuff, so let them, but my goal with this is, to solve this “Genverbrander” case once and for all, so that Robbert and gang’s fraud goes away. All too too often, “paranormal offenders” continue their deception for a lifetime. James Randi of the former Randi Organization saw and predicted that very well (though rather in his own  “unkind” choice of words), as far as Robbert van den Broeke is concerned:

The remainder of the year 2016 went along relatively quiet while Stan was in Malaga. Although he did not fail to email me regularly, it was not that grave and between October 2016 and February 2017 I was even not emailed at all by the two (at least not under their real name).

An overview:

March 2016 – 4 mails from Stan only. It is worth noting that he says to stay in Malaga because he would be arrested in the Netherlands to be interrogated by the police and at that time he would not be allowed to leave the Netherlands.
April 2016 –  7 mails from Stan only. Nothing noteworthy
May 2016 – 4 mails from Stan only, noteworthy only his unkind words about “Anne Kuiters” who mailed me (33 times in total) about Stan, but much later it will turn out that this Anne probably does not exist at all and is possibly even Stan himself.
June 20164 mails from only Stan, including an audio in which he discusses the research on Robbert and Fred Melssen (positively) en Pepijn van Erp (negatively).
July 2016 – Nothing
August 201612 mails from Stan, divided between two streams: “New and Many Witnesses”, proving that Robbert is genuine, and Stan’s suggestion that Robbert and he are completely innocent of threats and hacks.
September 2016 – A sudden upturn in mails with 35 mails including 9 from Robbert and the rest of Stan. Robbert reports that his friends Roy Boschman and Karin Swiers have left him. The resurgence seems to be reflected in one of Robbert van den Broeke’s paranormal trucages of that time and the fact that I reacted critically to that on my Genverbrander10 Twitter account, which apparently caused a lot of consternation in “Team Robbert van den Broeke”.
Stan e-mailed about the person who mailed me, “Micha Romijn” of whom I already suspected it was Stan himself (22 June, 2017: 69 mails) and accuses “Micha” of slander (see explanation below). In addition, he sends me a few mails asking me, emphasizing (too much), if I can email him back. However, I have never emailed him again since May 2015.
A contemptuous mail from Robbert revealing that he has discovered my love for plush lions (see my Lion Heart blogs) and ridiculing it.
Stan again mails about Robbert’s research, positive about Fred Melssen and again negative about Pepijn van Erp. A lot of Stan Pluijmen mail about “evidence” of Robbert’s “authenticity” and their “innocence”.

Robbert’s “paranormal” excesses in 2016

His first, really striking paranormal blunder of the year 2016 was made by Robbert on June 3rd, 2016, when he aired a clip of his so-called filmed out-of-body experience on his YouTube channel. The clip looked like a textbook example of a demonstration video of (how to achieve certain effects of) Adobe Premier Pro, because in this program it’s pretty easy to mix images as is demonstrated in this very similar video clip by a meritorious YouTuber.
 Great hilarity arose among the more critical people, when they/we discovered that “astral Robbert” was casting a physical shadow on the wall and especially as he walked past a picture frame. Even some of his fans started to mutter and quite some ridiculing reactions were posted under this video. Stan later tried raising a defense that Robbert’s astral appearance was so strong that he cast a physical shadow, but to me this was a blunder of epic proportions comparable to Robbert van den Broeke’s octopus tentacles blunder just one year earlier. Stan Pluijmen, who manages – among other things, like Robbert’s email9 – Robberts YouTube Channel, suddenly removed the clip. Only the interview clip about the “out-of-body experience remained.

Look at the right wall during this clip:

The paranormal / astral phenomenon of the out-of-body experience had triggered “Team Robbert van den Broeke” earlier on already in 2016, because in early May 2016 excited messages were emerging on Facebook that Robbert had appeared to Alan and Stan in their apartment in Malaga while Robbert was in the Netherlands and according to his own relay had fallen flat on the ground and then appeared to be “out of it”.  Stan, as always vigilant and alert, immediately took a picture and captured an image of Robbert van den Broeke moving out of his body and in Stan and Alan’s apartment in Malaga.

On August 10, 2016 Robberts new video of  an “orb making a grass circle” was briefly and modestly taking off internationally, but when the clip was a proven fake, after Team Robbert delivered the “raw file” to be researched (and maybe gambling their luck on underskilled receivers, with no such luck), fame turned ruin again.  Shortly afterwards again, Team Robbert van den Broeke was trying their luck again with a similar clip, trying to prove it was really genuine, but this clip was even more fake than the first. To make a long story short, they had tampered with a file and then shot the photoshopped videoclip again from a computerscreen so the clip was one whole again and new “genuine”, “raw data” was obtained.
That fact that the first clip (and shortly after that, the second too) was tampered with, was proved on the Facebook page of Crop Circle Challenge and Stan Pluijmen, in response thereto was mailing me, but also on the Facebook page of Janez (the keeper of the page)  he responded.  However, when he discovered Janez wasn’t language-wise as delicate as me, he appeared to be heavily offended (“Slander, I will file a complaint against you, Janez!”) and quickly removed his online reactions. There is also an email from Robbert about Janez, a very technical story, but in terms of language, Stan seems to be speaking.

Start bizarre clips in Fall 2016

In September 2016, Robbert scornfully mails me that no hate emails are sent anymore and hence I can not do anything against him anymore, and that Nancy Talbott will be sending a lawyer after me (which turns out to be untrue, because nothing of the sort happened):

Quick translation: “Pity for you, you don’t receive hatemails anymore, now you can’t do a thing. My computer is well protected, I am not hacked anymore, you are pestering me on the internet, and when I mail you back with funny responses, you still call them hatemail. Justice will know it isn’t hate. Nancy Talbott has hired a lawyer to go after you, so don’t be surprised when you see the police appearing on your doorstep. She (Nancy) isn’t as softhearted and forgiving as me.”

Worth mentioning is the fact that in Fall 2016, Robbert himself and some other people are sending me short videoclips, partly directly addressed to me (Robbert in the clips themselves addressing me with “Hello Constantia…”) with the following themes: Robbert breaking wind to skeptics, Robbert namaste and ridiculing his fans , Robbert crazy-message to somebody else, Robbert drunk with beer, expanding elaborately on his arrest and how he is intensely enjoying himself with packed halls filled with fans and a very weird one about his arrest again, making funny faces and screaming with a very high pitched voice and yet another clip in which Robbert, in my opinion, does no untalented imitation of reporter John Bas of BN De Stem (who wrote about him). See also the Genverbrander Drive and sort by date.
Furthermore, Stan’s tone  of voice gradually becomes less pleasant and he turns out to be indignant about the suggested effects of my blog on his personal life:
Quick translation: “(some vague story about taking pictures of stars after people like Pepijn and me were criticizing a new “paranormal” event of Robbert). You won’t ever acknowledge the fact that you are wrong. But know something. Because of your blog I missed out on a house I wanted to rent. That woman found all your slander on the internet about me. She didn’t trust me anymore. I won’t stand for things like that. 

Soon, I want you to remove that slander. You are causing damage in my life. I am serious! Stan”

October 2016 – A couple of hateful mails from Robbert and Stan making it clearer that he wants to talk to me on the phone.
And then it became quiet until February 2017.

——————————————————————

Other strange mailers

At this moment, I will take the opportunity to review some other strange mailers in this case, because they are necessary for understanding the complete picture.

“Anne Kuiters” (33 mails) would have been a friend of Stan who once had received a great amount of money from Stan when she was experiencing hardship. “She” began to mail me about Robbert and Stan in 2015, and she was both positive and negative about them. “Her” four mails from 2015 were all received on the same day: September 28, 2015. Then I received 29 more of “her” mails in 2016 and 2017 after Robbert’s arrest date. For a while, I believed half-and-half or almost entirely that she was indeed an existing, fairly honest person. I kept it open because I just did not know. But the following and, in my view, very unlikely, “Stan-exculpating” mail from 2017 nevertheless troubled me:

Translation: “I have been treated I had psychoses. Everything I sent about Stan was false. I had just imagined it all. Greetings Anne Kuiters”

I also received from “her” a mail written by Stan, he apparently had her mailbox under control (see the gallery direct below).

Stan admitted in a couple of audios he was “Sander de Graaf” (2 mails in February 2017). I will pick up on this story a little below.

Mieke Veen” admitted in “her” (15 mails, May-June 2017) mails of various kinds, including so-called remote assistance on a modem problem, which “she” knew about earlier than I did myself, and some obscene sex speeches, that “she” too was Stan and I received a mail from Stan from “her” address (see gallery pictures below).

And last for now, “Micha Romijn” sent me such split mails (69) about his identity, that I also counted his mail in the 2017 hate mail charts. He began to mail in August 2016, but I have not counted the 2016 mails. Also from his address, I received a mail from Stan (see gallery pictures under the piece about “Micha”).

This is by far the most intense “character”. He started out with the story about how he knew Robbert van den Broeke through a homo chat, and about Stan he remained very vague, even after I repeatedly asked him if he knew Stan or stronger yet: if he was Stan (!). Suddenly, at some point, he said he did not know Stan. But he sent me things Robbert would have sent him, like some clips. The mails were very confusing as a whole, and people interested in this figure may ask me to email them the full “Micha Romijn file”. Much later, he went to some extremes, saying he was hacked by Stan and that he would report Stan to the police.

Some example mails:

Short translations: in exact order as shown by the screenshot below: 

September 6, 2016 – “Micha”: “Yes, I am Stan Pluijmen, I am impersonating Micha so I can hear you out. Just kidding! Why would he (Stan) run off the Spain? I do wonder about all these people who say they have witnessed Robbert’s paranormal events. I did read about Robbert hacking you. And then this Joran guy speaking from his prison cell, I find this very funny, I just can’t help myself. Don’t you think this is a bit funny? Greetings Micha”

September 6, 2016 – “Micha”: “I do not know Stan, I forgot to answer your question about it. I met Robbert through a homo chat, I didn’t tell you about it, because I didn’t want to appear weird, I am sorry. Robbert did know I had  a problem with my left ear and he was right about it. I was interested only in this small gifted side of him. I asked him critical questions about obviously fake photos and other stuff. Articles about his exposure, I only read later on. I think he needs help when he posts nude pictures of himself on Facebook, don’t you agree? Micha”

September 7, 2016 – “Micha”: “Can you quote me where I was saying I know Stan? I am curious about him now, I will mail him, his email address is on your Twitter page. He (Robbert) is sick, he likes it when these clips of him are published, he likes being naked on Facebook just as he likes his fart to appear on YouTube. Like he doesn’t assess what he’s doing. It proves he is sick.”
September 7, 2016 – Constantia: “But are you friends with Stan? i don’t understand. How could you know Robbert and don’t know Stan? So Robbert sends you clips, you send them to me, I publish them, so Robbert must know you gave them to me, and still he is sending you more stuff? Something doesn’t add up, sorry. Constantia”

May 21, 2017 – “Micha”: “Stan told me the truth about Robbert, that he is part real, part fake. Stan said he has shielded Robbert from a part of the tricks. He’s sorry he went along with it and that there’s no hacker, but that they can’t go back now.  He would have liked to start all over, help Robbert prove his real gifted side. I’ve never seen Stan mad, but I did see Robbert very mad. Stan says Robbert has threatened him, but still Stan wants to help him, with scientific research too, he paid for.”
May 21, 2017 – Constantia: “What kind of things did he tell you, violent, sexual, angry?”
May 21, 2017 – “Micha”: “Give me your Skype name, then we can talk. This will establish trust. I will tell you things he told me you wouldn’t believe. I will give you audio if you promise you won’t publish it, because then he would know I leaked it to you.”

Strange enough, he sent me a copy of his Dutch ID, just without any reservations, even without urging me to keep it to myself , when I doubted him about his identity. The photo on that ID immediately struck me, because it looked photoshopped and, in my opinion, looked younger than what the ID said in the birth year. He wanted to talk to Skype with me, but I hold back for a long time. And when I finally agreed he did not show up anymore. I posted his full ID after a long wait and thought about it on Twitter and asked if anyone knew him.

Then he angry, or played angry, sent me several pictures of him and his ID (they had no usable exif data on them), which instead of reassuring me, confirmed that there was shit hitting the fan, because, in my opinion, he was disguised. He demanded that I removed his ID from Twitter, and threatened to go to the police. I exactly wanted him to do that, because I hoped that could lead to a breakthrough in this case.

His victim’s role suddenly shifted to that of perpetrator when I received hack-threats and other disturbed sounds and hate-speeches from him with distorted voice!10 There were no real-voice audios of him. And my modem indeed – probably with a ddos attaque – was undermined. Although he threatened to now report me instead of Stan to the police, because now suddenly he suggested I or my husband was the hacker, I never heard about that “police report” again.

His extremely schizophrenic mails, which varied between the poisonous friend (sending me Robbert stuff without Robbert knowing about it), victim (of hacks) and perpetrator (he threatened and hacked me himself), as well as his extremely remarkable ID “confirmations” would in my opinion rather alarm the police about him instead of helping him in his “case”.  Stan, meanwhile, who read my “Micha Romijn notifications” through my Twitter account, claimed by audio (Dutch) that Micha Romijn was the hacker who was behind all the hatred. An unlikely chaos had arisen which, in my opinion, was deliberately created to raise a smoke curtain around the criminal case Robbert van den Broeke. See all “Micha Romijn” ID pictures that I was “allowed” to receive:

The evidence that Stan was literally everywhere in this case, or even was these other persons for a 100%, I found in these three simultaneously received mails from successively Anne, Micha and Mieke:

 

Text in all three emails was almost the same (and thus from three different email addresses!):

Hi, I’m Stan, the person who was trying to badmouth me, gave me the logging data to come clean with me. Check the mail header, this is not a spoof. I have been wrongly trashed by this person.

On the “Sander de Graaf” personality, I’ll be back right here.

——————————————————————

The year 2017

Just a year later, around February and March 2017, the sky around Robbert van den Broeke suddenly darkened quickly, in my opinion not coincidentally coinciding with the moment Stan Pluijmen decided to turn his back to Malaga and return to his homebase.
On 21 and 24 February 2017, I received two mails from Stan Pluijmen under the mentioned pseudonym Sander de Graaf, in which he offered me 10K and then 15K in succession to remove my blogs about Robbert and him.
As I was not planning to mail, and still have no intentions to mail Stan Pluijmen, I did not respond to this. I did immediately inform Fred Melssen and John Bas (of BN De Stem) and a few days later Pepijn van Erp. Of course, I would never remove my blog for money because it is against my principles. In June 2017, I several times received a confession of Stan Pluijmen that he had indeed been “Sander de Graaf”, as can be heard on this recording of June 3, 2017.
So Stan was back in the Netherlands, and Robbert was very happy with that, and also literally said that in mails and clips, because from the end of March 2017 I suddenly received a significant flow of Robbert van den Broeke mails and especially videos that besides a lot of annoyance caused much hilarity and disbelief among the followers of my Twitter Genverbrander10 account. And of course, Stan Pluijmen played his part and sent me in particular incredible amount of audio recordings that shot into my mailbox (until publishing date of this blog: 80 audio recordings).
This was the first of Robbert van den Broeke’s mails “New Stile” and provided an adequate “genre” label for the forthcoming tumult:

Quick translation: “Hello Constantia. I am pleased that you stopped harassing me with which you didn’t achieve anything. Fortunately I’m able to see Stan again. He reported himself to the police and they have interrogated him for only three hours, not the six days they interrogated me. After three hours they let him go, and he is off the wanted list. We will continue with our paranormal events on Facebook and it pleases me to say there will be a new website. I am very happy that your tireless effort has led to exactly nothing, you learn from your mistakes now, bad lady.  Greetings Robbert”

Videos and audios “Highlights”

The videos and audios of Robbert and Stan are so very numerous that it would take too long to describe them all. I will limit myself to a few “highlights” sorted around the main “themes”.

Robbert is having a baby/(with) Leydi Figueroa

“Storyline”: Robbert says he is expecting a child with a Dutch celebrity who would like to have a child with a high energy, he was just the donor, because he is still as gay as a hatter. However, he finds it very important that a new phase of his life has has started, and the child will certainly be a very high incarnation. For some time, it remains unclear who the lucky lady is.

Some time later, I receive two clips from Leidy Uceda, Joran van der Sloot‘s wife (all through Robbert’s mailbox). I want to emphasize that I do not know the lady at all, except through the news of course. Furthermore, I’ve never talked to Robbert and Stan (and I’d like to keep it that way). Leidy obviously knows me through Stan Pluijmen and Robbert who, as I have already made clear in previous blogs, are friends with Joran van der Sloot, in a clip she says she had a car accident and that she loves me, in the other clip she says in Dutch: “I’m pregnant from Broeke”, wherein it is not clear if she knows what she’s saying. Robbert tells me in an email that the child survived and that he is very relieved. There are also reports from Robbert and Stan that Leidy had a near-death experience in which I appeared to Leidy. Stan Pluijmen says via an audio file that he sent me later, he thinks Leidy is not the recipient of Robberts seed and that Robbert must have been hacked again (totally vague and raising a smoke curtain again).

 * Received all these clips via mailbox Robbert van den Broeke *

Robbert is mad as hell

Robbert is mad as hell and repeatedly calls me “cunt”. He explodes like a volcano talking about a photoshop I made in 2006, in which I was making a little fun of Randi . Robbert and Nancy Talbott were oblivious to this side of the story, because Nancy Talbott also describes my “bloodthirsty” photoshop ” “targeting Robbert” on her site and says how widespread it was not – * not * so. Randi is seen as Black Vulture preying on Robbert van den Broeke’s alleged body. Robbert has a lot of imagination, because he is talking about organs, blood and guts that can’t be seen on the low-resolution image it always was. It was one of my first photo shops and it was rather an underachievement in terms of craftsmanship. Robbert blames me that I would have started everything with this picture.

The “offending” photoshop I made in 2006

Related: In later (but also earlier) mails and audio files, Stan also emphasizes how many Robbert van den Broeke photo shops I made, according to him that is, because I’m afraid he’s confused with many other photo shoppers. I really didn’t make that many. One of these photoshops Stan mentions, is the one of “Robbert and me together”. As an old FOK veteran (because these photoshops do exist) I knew of course, which one he meant and I still have some of those pictures as well. At that time, like I am doing now, I tended to store files. Doing some research if he has things right, is not one of Stan Pluijmen’s assets.

Translation: “Robbert is once again corny, but of course, nobody sees it like that. You were allowed to photoshop for years, like the one with you and Robbert together, biggest silliness, that is  considered healthy, but all jokes of Robbert are “sick”. What a joke.”

Stan nevertheless found it a nice excuse to send me neutral (?) photoshops (via) his own mailbox regularly, but also rather unpleasant ones and sometimes clips of me.

A photoshop that I received recently, but not directly via Stan Pluijmen, was a very vulgar one about alien sex with dildos and me and my book Through The Gate figuring. I received this from “Micha Romijn” who said he had it from Stan Pluijmen, but later corrected it in Sven Pluijmen (Stan’s brother). Six days before, I had received video clips from Stan Pluijmen about the fact that he bought my book Through The Gate and had put it under his pillow.11  I did not mention this on my Twitter Genverbrander10 account, but suddenly “Micha” mailed me with it  (and I already linked him to Stan, above). I did upload the clips to the Genverbrander Google Drive.

 * Received all these clips via mailbox Robbert van den Broeke *

Stan, Rens Hendriks and the scientific research of Gerding and Van Egmond.

Listen from about 2:30 minutes (Dutch only)

Stan Pluijmen: “Look, Rens Hendriks, that’s also the man of whom Robbert received the divine gift …. but if he (Robbert) really gets into his divinity, then his brain activity is eliminated, and that’s how it was measured at Rens’s too. […]. And later, two people Hans and Klaas came, Hans Gerding and Klaas van Egmond […]. Hans and Klaas who have also done brain research on Robbert […] and they have admitted. ..] that Robbert was also brain death, just like Rens Hendriks […]. “

Stan Pluijmen is letting the cat out of the bag with the names of two well-known scientists and former professors, Klaas van Egmond and Hans Gerding, who had done scientific research into Robbert in the fairly distant past and would have concluded by an EEG measurement that Robbert van den Broeke was braindead during his mediumship. For years, both Robbert and Stan referred to this mysterious investigation, but never mentioned names before and nobody knew the good of it. Robbert van den Broeke’s patron Nancy Talbott also always was very eager in spreading the “scientific good news” about Robbert and, where possible, did a lot of advertising for Robbert by mentioning the “fact” he was investigated by serious scientists as Dr. Roll and further unnamed persons which would have resulted in spectacular findings.

The two scientists in question apparently had no reason to see the results coming out. Pepijn van Erp, who, like me, followes the Van den Broeke case fairly close and had heard about this “famous” research earlier on as well, picked up on this sound clip from Stan and devoted an article on Kloptdatwel.nl to it with a sharp observation in his closing sentence, namely that the Robbert van den Broeke saga needs to be unveiled step by step. Thanks to the mediation of Fred Melssen, who has been very valuable to me in this case for a couple of years now, Pepijn van Erp was able to quote them on this so-called braindead event of Robbert van den Broeke and they said no such thing as “braindead” had occurred . Stan Pluijmen then responded with: “They’re lying!” And “The Donders Institute is going to investigate Robbert”.

When I opened the book of Robbert van den Broeke again, searching for passages about Rens Hendriks, I found countless. They all express their great admiration for Rens; That Rens had saved Robbert from the mental institute and was sending Robbert “powerful energies” through the astral realm. When I read the book in 2005, I put comments in pencil everywhere and my eyes caught this page and underlined sentences:

Translation: “Rens Hendriks says that God wants to be human again to be more present in creation. He wants to be in everybody, even in criminals, to achieve that goal.”

Rens Hendriks mentioned on numerous pages in Robbert van den Broeke’s book

This statement did outset a full chorus of bells in my brain, because it exactly matches the ideas of Robbert and Stan, that criminals should be forgiven and that they mostly should get a lot of love. For example, look at this passage about Joran van der Sloot on Robbert’s website, and there were several other moments like these when Robbert and Stan talk(ed) about criminals:

Screenshot website Robbert van den Broeke

The question that comes to my mind is: if Rens Hendriks was really (as) clairvoyant as stated numerous time in Robbert’s book and elsewhere, why then could he not foresee that Robbert would derail completely in the future? And what has been the effect of him “sending power” to Robbert van den Broeke? Given the thoughts for example on “God and criminals” of Rens Hendriks as mentioned in this book, I wonder how and to what extend Robbert and Stan are really inspired by Rens.

Nancy Talbott’s setback and death Sandra Reemer

Also in this year, there were new setbacks in Robbert van den Broeke’s life, namely the fact that at the end of March 2017 his American promotor Nancy Talbott was affected by cerebral hemorrhage and is now rehabilitating. He made it known on April 1, 2017. And another important Dutch guardian, Sandra Reemer, well-known from television and music, died on June 6, 2017. Robbert wrote about it on June 12, 2017. However, this did not prevent Robbert from sending me a all kinds of weird emails, exactly in these days too (See hate mail charts) and informing his Facebook followers about various “paranormal events” like crop grass circles with “felt presences” of Martin Luther King and Princess Juliana” and light orbs.

Footnotes

[1] Some of the police filers are mentioned by name, for example in (Dutch): – Medium Robbert van den Broeke ontkent versturen gruwelijke foto’s en bedreigingen, Omroep Brabant, 19 januari 2015 And more:
– Het medium en de haatmails, BN De Stem, 2 maart, 2016
– Liesbeth van Dijk, Facebook, 7 juli 2015
– Medium Robbert van den Broeke opgepakt voor doodsbedreigingen: ‘Ik snijd je keel door’, Omroep Brabant
– Robbert van den Broekes arrestatie en wat daaraan vooraf ging Constantia Oomen, 16 januari 2016

[2] Colin Andrews has devoted several short and long articles to Robbert van den Broeke. A couple were very concrete about Colin’s research into Robbert’s computer behavior after stealing the photo of Colin’s friend Pat Delgado (see earlier in this blog):
– Colin Andrews/Pat Delgado family, 15 mei 2012 and
– Fraud Consultant with Colin Andrews investigating Robbert van den Broeke photo claims, 11 juli 2012

[3] Andy Russell also dedicated several articles to Robbert; In addition to Colin Andrews, he was one of the first recipients of Robberts hate mail. See here for a few of his contributions: Circular State Of Mind/Robbert van den Broeke.

[4] Viola Holt has written on her Facebook page a few times since her Facebook friends saw the nude pictures of Robbert van den Broeke on her page: Viola Holt Facebook, 15 december 2015.

[5]
– Medium Robbert van den Broeke bekent foute uitspraken op tape: “God straft Irene Moors”.
– Robbert van den Broeke: “God straft Irene Moors”]Show Nieuws, 11 februari 2016
– Genverbrander Google Drive/Genverbrander Speaks

[6]
– Medium Robbert van den Broeke opgepakt voor doodsbedreigingen: ‘Ik snijd je keel door’, Omroep Brabant
Medium Robbert van den Broeke opgepakt, De Telegraaf, 17 januari 2016

[7] Mainly “Part II of the “Genverbrander Speaks” document (Dutch only).

[8] Personal correspondence Colin Andrews and Constantia Oomen d.d. June 21, 2017.

[9]  Several times, I received Stan’s mail via Robbert’s mail address, such as recently an audio clip, which made it clear that Stan has control over Robbert’s email, which he himself also admitted recently to Fred Melssen.

[10] “Micha Romijn” audios, with distorted voice: in chronological order: one two three four

[11] Stan Pluijmen talking about Through The Gate: Clip 1 and Clip 2.

———————————–

Expression of gratitude

I would like to thank the following people: Rob Nanninga who together with the sweetest lions of the world is giving me unbelievably much peace, insight, support and love, Fred Melssen, who is increasingly supporting me in unraveling the web of fraud and the smoke curtain around Robbert van den Broeke, Pepijn van Erp for his presence in the background and his publishing of articles at the appropriate moments and sharp observations, Sjaan, the "Google Sjaantje" but also swan, who always emails me tips and technical backup, Lucy for opening her Robbert van den Broeke backup YouTube channel, and meanwhile many other people on Twitter and beyond who continue to provide feedback and sometimes were/are very helpful / with research, like Colin Andrews and Janez.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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