A former New Jersey Republican aide now faces a new round of scrutiny after reports linked her to a convicted felon while federal charges already accuse her of staging a violent hate-crime hoax.
Quick Take
- Federal prosecutors charged Natalie Greene with conspiracy to falsely report a violent attack and with making false statements.
- The Justice Department says Greene was not attacked by three men at gunpoint, but arranged for her injuries to be cut.
- New reporting says Greene is now dating a convicted felon who wears an ankle monitor.
- The relationship claim appears in tabloid-style coverage, while the criminal case remains an accusation, not a conviction.
Federal Charges Back the Hoax Allegations
The core case against Greene comes from the federal government, not gossip columns. The Department of Justice says she was charged in New Jersey with conspiracy to falsely report a violent attack and with making false statements to federal law enforcement. Prosecutors allege that Greene claimed three men attacked her at gunpoint on July 23, 2025, but that she instead arranged for a body modification artist to cut the wounds herself.
According to the charging documents, the reported scene included zip ties, lacerations, and political messages written on her body. Federal prosecutors also said a co-conspirator made a false 911 call saying Greene and another woman had been attacked by three men in Egg Harbor Township. The complaint says Greene later told investigators the injuries came from the supposed attackers, but prosecutors say evidence pointed to a staged event.
Several outlets reported that investigators found a receipt tied to the body modification artist and that Greene paid $500 for the cuts before the claimed assault. That detail matters because it supports the prosecution’s view that the injuries were planned, not random. Even so, the case is still a charge. The Justice Department says Greene is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
The New Relationship Claim Adds a Separate Media Layer
New York Post reporting now says Greene is romantically involved with a convicted felon who is wearing an ankle monitor and has a criminal history in three states. That article says the man is 34-year-old Dylan Wayneetz and that Greene posted a cheerful July Fourth selfie with him. On the facts provided, that claim comes from a single secondary report, not from a court filing, police record, or public statement tied to the case.
That distinction matters. The federal complaint addresses the alleged hoax, the false 911 call, and the false statements. It does not say anything about a boyfriend, a date, or any role a partner may have played in planning the incident. The relationship story may be colorful, but the available record does not show that it proves guilt, explains motive, or changed the investigation.
Why the Story Matters Beyond the Headline
For readers who are tired of fake victim stories and political theater, the federal allegations are the real center of the case. If the government proves its claims, this would be a sharp example of how false-reporting schemes waste law-enforcement time and damage public trust. It also shows how quickly a political story can be built around an alleged attack, then collapse when investigators check the facts.
The dating report, by contrast, is mostly a character detail at this stage. It may interest readers, but it should not be confused with evidence. The stronger public record still rests on the Justice Department’s allegations, the complaint, and the reporting that says Greene paid for the wounds and helped stage the false scene. If the relationship claim is later documented, it may add context. For now, it remains secondary to the federal case.
That is the key point in this story: Greene is accused of helping stage a fabricated attack, and the newest headline about her dating life does not change the charge sheet. The courts will decide the criminal case. The public record already shows a troubling mix of false reporting, political messaging, and a federal investigation that says the attack never happened as described.
Sources:
nypost.com, justice.gov, cnn.com, tmz.com, usatoday.com
