Friday, January 9, 2015

Allison Woolbert Exposed Part One

falsify information, and cause harms to other individuals in order to do so.   

Her address, 9 Orchard Circle is not owned by her, its owned by one Irving Crespi, who according to Google is deceased, and the property is in the care of one Robert Crespi.

image21
The interesting thing about Irving is his career was in researching the  manipulation of  public opinion.
This is apparently Ms. Woolbert has been doing from the beginning.  How did she come to live there and why is she living in a dead mans house, whose career was built on researching ways to change public views? One must question the manner in which Ms. Woolbert came into the trans community and rose to such a prominent position without anyone having any direct knowledge of who she was, or is now, or what her true motives were.  She appears to be a master manipulator with connections to high places.  According to an anonymous source (we are protecting their identity for their safety) who was friends with Allison,  stated that she rented this house very cheaply from Mr. Crespi because they were friends of her family.  One wonders how much “help” these friends of the family have given her.

For those that might doubt this is the same Irving we have verified that this house belonged to the same Irving Crespi who wrote that paper.
The Chicago tribune has an Obituary for him having his date of death march 18 2004.
Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-25/news/0403250118_1_social-research-polling-baruch-college
A lookup of  Irving Crespi in public records shows he lived at 9 orchard circle with the same year and month of death, as well as the same age.
image08
And then the worst part of this investigation, thus far,  came to light.
Ms Allison Woolbert  is a convicted child rapist. How the law defined this act, in 1991, was as a penetrative act, unlike classifications of aggravated sexual assault today. Worse yet is that because her conviction predates 1994, she was not required to register on New Jersey’s Sex Offender Registry database, making it more difficult for anyone to discover this information unless conducting a criminal record check. In fact, Nametheproblem, a TERF website keen on smearing trans women, consistently writing about what they claim are violent trans women, also passed over this conviction. Now stop and read that one more time.

Questions have since been raised, if Nametheproblem could have been aware of this conviction for some time, and if this conviction was hidden for possible future use, which would be a significant disservice to all people, no matter who they are.  Once the group conducting this investigation – the authors of this article – began to look, it took under 5 minutes to have a complete record of this information. This further lends to the possibly that this information was already in the hands of individuals running, and associated with, Nametheproblem. One must question, if the information was not being held for alternative reasons, how it could have been missed. With little work we found an actual predator, which is extremely odd as they have devoted significant time to looking for things just like this. Is this gross incompetence or a possible situation of blackmail?
Allison Woolbert has a conviction for 1 count of Aggravated Sexual Assault in the 1st degree in New Jersey against a minor under the age of 16 who is also a relative. As a bit of background on what that charge specifically means, the law in question,  2c:14-2a,  reads as follows:
Aggravated Sexual Assault is codified under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a, which provides:
  1. An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:
    1. The victim is less than 13 years old;
    2. The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and
      1. The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree; or
      2. The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor’s legal, professional, or occupational status; or
      3. The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;
    3. The act is committed during the commission, or attempted commission, whether alone or with one or more other persons, of robbery, kidnapping, homicide, aggravated assault on another, burglary, arson or criminal escape;
    4. The actor is armed with a weapon or any object fashioned in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a weapon and threatens by word or gesture to use the weapon or object;
    5. The actor is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and the actor uses physical force or coercion;
    6. The actor uses physical force or coercion and severe personal injury is sustained by the victim;
    7. The victim is one whom the actor knew or should have known was physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally incapacitated.
We aquired public court records of the case. At this point, we would like to warn readers about deadnaming of Ms. Woolbert here. This is an extremely unfortunate situation. Even though it is absolutely necessary to detail her heinous crime, there is no way to do so without using her deadname. However, this does not mean that this information, or Ms. Woolberts identity, are any less valid. We, the writers as well as the undersigned, ask you to not use her deadname and still refer to her as Allison Woolbert.
B3UdaGC
m0XNfF7
mouGjGU
NGWISgd
T4c3dnD
UICJfki
wMHdlD3
zEiQO03







As you can see from the public records the rape in question happened to a minor and Ms. Woolbert was sentenced to six years in prison for this crime, it is yet unclear if Ms. Woolbert was in a capacity to care for this relative child, who is now an adult, but it is clear that this child was directly related to her, as designated by the “rel” in the above screenshots.
Upon learning of this information, members of the trans community, prompted by the authors of this article, apparently asked Ms. Wolbert directly about the information uncovered through this investigation. This is the point when Allison Woolbert seems to have panicked about what was uncovered and began to engage in further lies and manipulation of the information in an attempt to control its release and grossly misrepresent the nature of her crime, when this investigation began, and how it would proceed.

On January 7th, one day after this investigation was initiated, Ms. Woolbert drafted and published a release detailing  information about her crime. However, this release, on its own, is full of significant misinformation. When the release was first made, Ms. Woolbert dated it two days prior to when the information was actually presented to her, as you can see from the following screenshot.
image03

As has already been mentioned, this release was made on January 7th, and not on January 5th. The writers of this article believe that this was a further attempt by Ms. Woolbert, to conceal information and represent what was know about it, when it was known, who knew it, and the purpose of finding the information. There are very few know organizations that do not have an auto-date feature built into their software, which lends to the fact that this was intentionally manipulated.

This apparent backdating of when this article was released is believed to be significant. Upon publication of this information, It took only a few hours, at most, for Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) to find it. So, had Ms. Woolbert actually published the release when she had initially claimed (it has since been changed to the actual date), TERFs would have immediately found this information. This act of deception, coercion, and manipulation of individuals and information is only  an addition to the long, well established, history of Ms Woolbert. It is also interesting to note that this investigation was initiated because of allegations of fraud, deception and abuse. It is notable that none of the individuals involved in this investigation, nor the authors of it put what was, and still is, an ongoing investigation into Ms. Woolbert’s activities in the public sphere. Once it was brought to the attention of Ms Woolbert, she began an immediate campaign to create a narrative where she has painted herself as a victim, but also smear the writers, and by extension publisher, of a story that did not yet exist.

It is reasonable for one to believe or assume that the explanation given by Ms. Woolbert (contained in the first screencap below) is also misleading in an attempt to manipulate the situation. Also, the research into her background wasn’t done until the 6th, as evidenced in the second screencap.
image23
10909380_10153527214458266_1058132176_o




Additionally, Ms. Woolbert’s statements  go a significant distance in downplaying her actual crime by using language that disguises the nature of it, is less than critical of her actions, and diverts attention from additional issues that have been raised or fails to address them at all. The way people use language can tell a lot about what is being said, it can reveal intent, display micro- and macro aggressions, as well as develop specific narratives, all of which are present in this release. Ms. Woolbert stated this about the crime.
img

This is a mischaracterization of the nature of the crime in what seems an apparent attempt to sway public opinion about what her crime was by failing to name what she has done, in addition to using soft language to describe such. It was not just an “unconscionable behavior as a human being”, this was the violation of another human being body through sexual penetration, which constitutes rape. It is the ultimate form of intimidation and control of another human being. This failure to name what she did is extremely manipulative and demonstrative of what appears to be an inability to own her past and what she has done. Remember, that soon after TVTP was started, Ms. Woolbert had absolutely no problem permanently marking Parker Malloy for words, despite the nature of them. However, when the situation involves Ms. Woolbert, the goalpost move quickly and misdeeds must be forgiven. How can an organization that is headed by an individual that conceals their past and only reveals that when other find out about it,  goes to lengths to whitewash that past, and also crucifies others for words,  but expects different accountability for their own actions have any legitimacy? At every turn Allison Woolbert has made the wrong decision, and this emphasizes such. How can an organization headed by this person be viewed with any legitimacy in light of this crime, or any of the other significant issues raised?

This need for power and control is also evidenced in the statement itself – in its very first paragraph.
image11

Notice the apparent attempt to control the information. It would be appropriate for one to believe that given this need to control and manipulate things, having a narrative coming directly from her allows her to direct as much attention as possible, given the circumstances of her crime, elsewhere. This is characteristic of the behavior that seems to be consistent throughout everything detailed thus far about Allison Woolbert.

This is not the end of what need to be looked at in Ms. Woolbert’s release. She also had this to say:
image13

While it may be true that Ms. Woolbert has made earnest efforts to avoid and additional harm to her victim, a family member, it also seems likely that Ms. Woolbert has avoided any sort of disclosure about this past because of the negative effects it would have on herself. This crime, in the context of the work Ms. Woolbert has undertaken, presents an extreme ethical problem and a conflict of interest when that crime is not disclosed, in any manner.

Every person deserves a benefit of the doubt in situations of past histories. People do things that are terrible, but these things can be recovered from if people acknowledge and learn from what they have done, moving forward in their lives. However, when an individual places themselves in a position where they work with victims of any sort of abuse, it is unacceptable to do so without disclosing that previous history. Not doing so presents a situation in which that person tries to hide that past, would be an ethical violations by the standards of most organizations, and grounds for immediate dismissal. In addition, the exposure of that past can be, understandably, extremely traumatizing to an individual subject to similar abuse, especially when it is in context of a community that is already victimized by abusers. Until the point when this investigation began, and allegations were brought to Ms. Woolberts attention, there was no disclosure of that information made. It is entirely reasonable to believe that had this investigation not been conducted into Ms. Woolbert’s past, she may have never disclosed this horrible past as a sex offender who violated a child, continuing to promote herself as something she is not – A rapist.

The final section of Woolbert’s  statement reinforces much of the manipulation and misdirection outlined in these words.
image20

It seems reasonable on the surface that Woolbert it making a genuine attempt to rectify the concealment of her violent criminal past; it looks as if it is a way to make whole the various ethical issues that her lack of disclosure has created, however, this could be farther from the truth. The “Board of Trustees” that Woolbert mentions is a hand-picked, close group of her friends. At best, this is only a disingenuous attempt to do the right thing. It is however more likely that this hand picked group of friend that directly benefits from a relationship with Ms. Woolbert would produce little more than a shell game where Woolbert feigns regret, is “removed” from her position to maintain any legitimacy, but remains in-charge. It is also likely that this hand picked group of friends do nothing and claim that this willingness to disclose (remember, this was concealed until the moment Woolbert knew it was going to come out) her history as a rapist showed her reform and suitability for the position.

As mentioned  earlier, this investigation began on January 6th. It has been an in progress article since the moment that Ms. Woolbert’s past came into the light of day. Until that point, as has already been mentioned, Ms. Wolbert made absolutely no attempt to disclose this information and presumably never would have, had it not been discovered by the writers of this article and those assisting with the investigation.

Stay tuned for the continuation of this multi-part series

No comments:

Post a Comment