Dear reader of this blog,
Welcome to my digital living room, here on WordPress. Since a local administrator Public Safety, Roy Timmermans deleted my police file regarding my former boss in December 2020, my digital front door can no longer be locked, and my personal information and digital identity are being systematically abused by cyberstalking anonymous individuals. That’s why I write letters. The letter below concerns the confiscation of my digital devices, Oktober 26, 2021.
********
Board of Procurators General
P.O. Box 20305
2500 EH The Hague
Tilburg, May 24, 2025
Subject: Request for review of systemic neglect of complaints and citizen protection by the Zeeland-West-Brabant Public Prosecution Service
Dear Members of the Board,
I am writing to formally request a thorough and independent investigation into how the Zeeland-West-Brabant Public Prosecution Service, in cooperation with the police, handled my reports of digital stalking, cybercrime, and administrative intimidation during the period from December 2020 to May 2022. I also ask that you review the lawfulness of my detention from October 26 to 27, 2021, and the seizure of my digital devices.
1. Unexplained detention and confiscation of digital equipment
On October 26, 2021, I was suddenly arrested and detained in a police cell for 30 hours without any clear explanation of the basis or reason for this deprivation of liberty between my initial police report against a structural digital stalking and stalking ex-boss on October 19, 2020, and October 26, 2021. During the 30 hours detention, all my digital devices (including phone, laptop, and storage media) were seized.
The police officers involved stated they did not know why I was being arrested and told me they were following orders “from the Public Prosecution Service.” No legal basis was mentioned, and I was never presented with any formal charges or specific allegations.
What makes this situation even more troubling is that I had sent three emails shortly before my arrest containing vital information about my circumstances, along with photographs from the weekend prior to my detention that confirmed my physical and mental well-being. This evidence could have easily demonstrated that I posed no threat or risk. Yet, this material was apparently not considered sufficient reason for the public prosecutor to reconsider the necessity of the measure. Why not?
I therefore explicitly request the Board to investigate:
· On what legal grounds I was arrested and detained;
· What concrete suspicion or intelligence justified this action;
· Why key emails and photographic evidence were disregarded by the prosecution;
· Whether this course of action violated Article 5 of the ECHR and the Dutch Constitution.
2. Systematic disregard for complaints and digital stalking
As previously communicated, the relevant public prosecutor and a detective from the investigation unit have consistently failed to act on my complaints about digital stalking, identity theft, and cybercrime. These violations—committed using my personal data and digital identity—remain unpunished and uninvestigated. The resulting harm to my safety, well-being, and reputation is profound.
3. Improper involvement of alderwoman and network corruption
I also request an inquiry into the legal grounds and mandate on which the public prosecutor involved the city alderwoman Marcelle Hendrickx in both my criminal complaint and the trial against me. This political involvement occurred while I, as a private citizen, was reporting a conflict with my former employer. Inviting a sitting alderwoman into a case of this nature not only creates legal inequality, but also raises serious concerns about political favoritism and administrative network corruption.
Moreover, there is relevant historical context: as early as 2014, reports emerged about cybercrime committed by her spouse, the disgraced academic Diederik Stapel. Such a background should have warranted greater caution and neutrality from the local authorities.
4. Alarming intervention by Safe Public Task coordinator
I refer also to a “warning conversation” I was compelled to attend in December 2020, initiated by Roy Timmermans, the Safe Public Task (Veilige Publieke Taak) coordinator in Tilburg. In that meeting, I was prohibited from blogging about workplace bullying, as well as from writing about suicide prevention and how to recognize early signs — topics I had covered responsibly in my blog.
When I asked Mr. Timmermans for help concerning the growing presence of hard drug activity in my neighborhood, he replied: “You’re drawn to the dark side, aren’t you?” I experienced this remark as stigmatizing and condescending. It later became clear that my police complaint had been removed at his initiative, allegedly under instruction from my former employer and the involved alderwoman. I have never had the opportunity to speak to either Mr. Timmermans or Ms. Hendrickx about this in person. These actions raise serious concerns about the integrity of local public safety policy and the treatment of vulnerable whistleblowers.
Request
In light of the above, I request that the College of Prosecutors General:
- Initiate an internal investigation into the conduct of the public prosecutor and the detective from Zeeland-West Brabant.
- Assess the legality of my arrest on October 26, 2021, and the associated infringement on my life and privacy.
- Explain why critical evidence supporting my innocence was and continues to be ignored.
- Investigate why a political official was involved in a citizen’s complaint and legal case.
- Evaluate whether there was any conflict of interest or network corruption.
- Assess whether the actions of Safe Public Task Coordinator Roy Timmermans align with national policy and rule-of-law principles.
- Review conviction and consequences of contact ban:
On May 13, 2022, I was convicted by a magistrate in a case resulting from blog publications I had written. My cultural critique and expressions of fear and frustration—in response to years of digital group stalking and harassment from a former professional network—were labeled as defamation and libel. The court imposed a no-contact order against both my former employer and Marcelle Hendrickx. I was also sentenced to pay €1,500 in damages to my former employer and to perform 60 hours of community service.
The implementation of this contact ban quickly led to what I experienced as an intimidating and absurd situation. Barely three weeks after the verdict, Marcelle Hendrickx was appointed neighborhood alderwoman for the very area in which I live. She came to open a public event organized by my neighbor — an event to which I had been invited, but which I was forbidden to attend due to the contact ban. The event took place just meters from my front door.
I experienced this behavior by Marcelle Hendrickx as a deliberate act of harassment and political provocation. Between 2014 and 2019, she had never responded to any of the invitations I sent her on behalf of Stichting Starwink, a non-profit foundation I founded that received public recognition at the time for organizing educational arts programs for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
My critical post on Twitter, in which I characterized her actions as bullying, immediately triggered a new police report and a trial before a multiple-judge panel in May 2023.
Following that trial, things escalated dramatically. Just after the court session, Marcelle Hendrickx once again came to my neighborhood, this time to attend a “murder mystery dinner” with her secretaries. Promotional materials for the dinner featured symbolic imagery referencing a project poster from Stichting Starwink, in which my sister and I were depicted as children. The combination of legal actions, symbolic provocations, and close proximity left me feeling utterly unsafe and violated.
Additional requests
1. Investigate whether Marcelle Hendrickx’s conduct following the May 2022 contact ban violated the spirit of the ruling, and whether her actions can be considered provocative, harassing, or intimidating toward a citizen in her constituency.
2. Assess whether the use of criminal instruments (such as contact bans and repeated complaints) in this case was proportionate, or whether it amounted to a misuse of the justice system by public officials.
3. Investigate whether the presiding judge in my May 2022 trial has professional or personal ties to the network surrounding Marcelle Hendrickx, which would call judicial impartiality into question.
4. I urgently request that you investigate whether the public prosecutor who acted on behalf of the Public Prosecution Service in Bergen op Zoom on May 13, 2022, resides in that city. The long-term digital stalking of which I am a victim consistently occurs in the evenings and at night and has demonstrable connections to digital activities originating from the Bergen op Zoom region.
I wish to inform you that I have already initiated a Section 12 Sv complaint procedure. This letter serves to further substantiate and reinforce my call for an independent investigation into serious failures in my legal protection.
Attachments: four
Sincerely,
Cora Westerink
Alumna, Tilburg University
Starwink Foundation, art for children and youth with fewer opportunities (2007–present), Chamber of Commerce no. 18087833
PDF Public Letters 2025 in Dutch
