Caleb McGillvary, better known to the world as Kai the Hitchhiker has clued me in to decades of judiciary corruption and media cover up related to several cases involving prosecutors, judges, state legislators and other prominent persons receiving slaps on the wrist for sex crimes related to children… over a period of over 30 years.
I mentioned the Cleveland Street Scandal in my first article about Kai’s situation in the Inquisitr back in 2017. The Cleveland Street Scandal which embroiled Oscar Wilde, in which at Wilde’s indecency trial the prosecutor, judge and others were shown decades later to have been involved in a child trafficking ring that catered to the well-to-do elites and may have extended as far as Prince Albert himself.
The Cleveland Street Scandal is mentioned in chapter one of my book Pedogate Primer: the politics of pedophilia. There is also a chapter on the 7th floor group ambassadorial sex crimes cover-up and Operation Flicker which exposed multiple people distributing and downloading child pornography on Department of Defense networks. Including people with top security clearance at the NSA and elsewhere.
This issue came up occasionally in the news off and on since Hillary Clinton’s stint as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Even a bill was written, the SEND Network Abuse act of 2019, a bipartisan bill. The End National Defense (END)Network Abuse Act was a bipartisan bill. Introduced to the Senate in 2019, it was then referred to the Committee on Armed Services. There was scant mention of it in the press between July and December 2019 and no actions to report since then.
KAI: I found some extremely disturbing news.
Joseph Galfy and his brother James weren’t the only ones in the Union County Legal Community preying on the innocent.
When head prosecutor Theodore Romankow said he was “in the same circles” as the Galfy’s;
He was apparently talking about a sex predator ring that goes back DECADES.
You may be wondering why I haven’t brought this up before now.
The fact is, I wasn’t able to find out until recently.
For years, in Union County Jail, I was never allowed to access a law library computer. I had to put in a request form, and an employee of the jail would decide what, if anything, I would receive.
After arriving at New Jersey State Prison, I spent over 2 years perfecting my appeals; so that I’m now ready to bring my case before a federal judge.
I recently got 4 free hours at the law library, after all my work was done. I decided to use the opportunity to answer the burning question:
“How many more Galfys ARE there in New Jersey?”
I tried looking up criminal cases, but those sneaky creeps hide the proceedings. Then I had a “Eureka!” moment.
I checked the Bar Disciplinary Proceedings.
I was like, “Holy Shit.”
First of all, I found “In Re Legato 229 NJ 173 (2017)”; a case involving 3 lawyers from those “circles”; who were each caught masturbating in front of kids from 9-12 years old… and attempting to lure them into secluded areas. In that case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held, verbatim:
“The Court refrains from establishing a bright-line rule requiring disbarment in all cases involving sexual offenses against children.” Legato 229 NJ at 182
The Court then admitted that, up until recently, they didn’t really care about lawyers sexually abusing children:
“In the fifteen years since Ferriaolo, we have recognized changing societal attitudes towards child sexual offenders.” Legato 229 NJ at 186
There were DOZENS more cases like that.
There were AT LEAST dozens more Galfys.
And these are just the ones with so much evidence; and so many witnesses; that they COULDNT cover it up.
(remember how hard they worked to cover up the Galfy in my case: destroyed evidence, perjured cops and judges, witness tampering, shifted burden of proof, etc, etc)
These are just the tip of the iceberg: we’ll never know how many they covered up. The Newspapers wouldn’t even report any but ONE of THESE ones!
Don’t just take my word for it; use Google Scholar or Leagle to look up these cases for your own self:
And I did just that. Below you will see Kai’s notes interspersed with the Disciplinary Review Board write-ups. Several for some of these folks and as I said, these are no small potatoes. Judges whose crimes are covered up in the media and then able to get their son’s sex crimes covered up as well. (No sex offender registry records either). Prosecutors, state legislators, the list goes on.
And so there’s no confusion about what Kai claimed, I added relevant portions from the DRB records that relate to this stream of sex offenders and pedophiles in New Jersey getting their crimes covered up in the media, slap on the wrist in the court room and a few months suspension. Of the first 7 here (of 18 so far) only one got jail time that I could see. Was seeing up to 30, sentenced to 5 years. Did 12 months.
It’s not a smoking gun regarding outright media blackout, but like with the Jeffrey Epstein case or Ed Buck, powerful people with connections get stories quelled all the time. Peter Nygard will be in a courtroom soon, but for years he had stories about his trafficking ring suppressed. If Joseph Galfy, the man Kai alleges drugged and raped him, a lawyer and brother of a former sheriff who was inexplicably in the active crime scene unattended around the time that the mugs and glasses Kai said were drugged were run through a dishwasher, but then later drug tested anyway?
I’ve wondered for a while why no reporters apart from myself seem to have been interested enough to look into the discovery documents, crime scene photos and other evidence that bears out Kai’s claims. Whether its a media blackout to keep Kai in prison so he can’t move forward with his civil suit for the 4+ years he spent in solitary in Union County (New Jersey’s 20th district, which, incidentally shows up several times in the following case studies.
Again, like Kai told me though, don’t take my word for it. The links are below and the lengthy portions under each case are direct quotes from the caselaw text or DRBs. Except for one case, none of these many stories of corruption, crimes against children and a system that slaps them on the wrist and sets them on the way presents itself time and again.
1.) Collins v Union County Jail 291 NJ Super 318 (Law Div 1995)
KAI: Union County Jail Officer Gayland Robinson repeatedly forcibly anally raped inmate Jessie Collins. Robinson never went to jail for it. The newspapers never reported it.
I checked Kai’s claim, thought he was wrong when I saw a news story from the New York Times, the article however is just explaining how it was determined the raped inmate had no civil recourse because the PTSD and psychological scars weren’t physical and thus no compensation was deemed worthy.
2.) In Re Cohen 204 NJ 588 (2011)
KAI: NJ Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen was caught distributing child porn from his office at THE NJ STATE LEGISLATURE. His receptionist found some printouts in his desk and alerted the press, so for once there was coverage.
The facts of this case are undisputed. In July 2008, printouts of pornographic images, some of which depicted young female victims, were found in a receptionist’s desk drawer at the district office of New Jersey’s Twentieth Legislative District. At the time, respondent was an assemblyman representing the Twentieth District. The discovery led to an investigation by the New Jersey State Police, which revealed that this was not the first time pornography was encountered at the office; staff had previously discovered sexually explicit images in the office during morning work hours or following a weekend. As a result, the Office of Legislative Services required passwords on the computers.
When confronted, respondent admitted to the State Police that he had visited pornographic sites and printed the sexually explicit pictures. He acknowledged that the sites he viewed and the printed images contained both adult and child pornography. He explained that he had accessed the receptionist’s state-issued computer with a password that he instructed another member of his staff to obtain. Interviews also revealed that staff members observed respondent viewing pornography on the receptionist’s computer on prior occasions.
In total, the police recovered thirty-four images of child pornography that respondent accessed on computers at the district office and at respondent’s law office. The images retrieved from respondent’s law office depicted nineteen girls under sixteen years old.
In some circumstances, we have disbarred attorneys involved with child pornography, rather than imposing a lengthy suspension. Disbarment is the most severe punishment, reserved for circumstances in which “the misconduct of [the] attorney is so immoral, venal, corrupt or criminal as to destroy totally any vestige of confidence that the individual could ever again practice in conformity with the standards of the profession.” In re Templeton, 99 N.J. 365, 376, 492 A.2d 1001 (1985).
For example, we concluded that disbarment was an appropriate discipline for an attorney who had been actively viewing child pornography for ten years, had in his possession the equivalent of 753 images of child pornography, and had traded these images with other persons. In re Burak, 208 N.J. 484 (2012). We found particularly unsettling the fact that several of the images portrayed children engaged in “sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence,” such as bondage. The respondent in Burak pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), and was subsequently sentenced to more than eight years in prison. We also took into account that the attorney had been indicted for criminal sexual contact with a minor female relative during the time that the FBI was investigating his child pornography activities.
Similarly, we disbarred an attorney after he pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire to felony possession of child pornography, a violation of 18 U.S.C .A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). In re Sosnowski, 197 N.J. 23, 961 A.2d 697 (2008). The attorney admitted to possessing sixty-seven images of child pornography and eight sexually explicit video files of children engaging in sexual acts and exposing their genitals. In addition, the attorney had placed hidden cameras in a child’s bathroom and bedroom. He was sentenced to thirty-seven months in prison, with five years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay a $100 assessment.
More generally, attorneys who have been convicted of offenses involving the physical sexual assault of children have typically been disbarred by this Court. In re Wright, 152 N.J. 35, 35, 702 A.2d 830 (1997) (disbarring attorney convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault for digitally penetrating his minor daughter’s vaginal area); In re “X”, 120 N.J. 459, 464–65, 577 A.2d 139 (1990) (disbarring lawyer who sexually assaulted his three daughters over an eight-year period); cf. In re Herman, 108 N.J. 66, 67, 527 A.2d 868 (1987) (suspending attorney for three years for purposely touching the buttocks of a ten-year-old boy, a second-degree sexual assault).
Most recently, we disbarred an attorney who pleaded guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of N .J.S.A. 2C:24–4(a). In re Frye, 217 N.J. 438 (2014). There, the respondent admitted to improperly touching a nine-year-old child in 1999, with the intent to “impair or debauch the morals of the child.” Respondent was sentenced to five years’ non-custodial probation, community supervision for life, and was prohibited from having contact with the victim. In September 2003, the respondent was found guilty of violating his probation by failing to report to his probation officer on six dates and failing to attend sex therapy. On September 19, 2003, he was sentenced to continued probation. We based his disbarment sanction on the crimes themselves and respondent’s failure to notify the OAE of his conviction for more than fifteen years, during which he continued to practice law with impunity.
In the case at hand, after analyzing and weighing the circumstances of respondent’s criminal offense, as well as respondent’s alleged mental illness, his own experience being sexually abused as a child, and his cooperation in seeking treatment and his progress thus far, we have determined to impose, for the first time, discipline not formerly used. We hold that respondent shall serve an indeterminate period of suspension, pursuant to Rule 1:20–15A(a)(2). This form of discipline is a step short of disbarment and is the most severe suspension that can be imposed on an attorney.
Imposition of the indeterminate suspension in this case places all attorneys on notice of the consequences that may follow sexually-related offenses. Respondent may not seek reinstatement for five years from the date of his temporary suspension. In addition, he must establish his fitness to practice law prior to being readmitted to the practice of law in New Jersey. Proof of fitness will be subject to vigorous review.
Deputy Majority Leader of NJ Assembly 2002 – resignation, Dep Minority Leader from 96-01, Minority Whip from 94-95.
(error 404 from Wikipedia link)
(updated 2019) “Union County Assemblyman two of the sources said a legislative staffer initially discovered the images, then notified Lesniak and Cryan. Cohen could not be reached for comment” “under psychiatric care”
“Cohen, 57, is in his 17th year in the Assembly, having served from 1990 to 1991 and continuously since 1994. He chairs the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee and is one of seven deputy speakers. He also is a long-time member of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Ethical Standards.”
He had a law practice in Montclair with Sen. Nia Gill (D-Essex) at this point the article from NJ.com turns into an odd sort of hagiography, whitewashing this serial pedophile.
“Among the more than 100 laws Cohen has sponsored is one that created a 24-hour hotline for members of the public to report computer crimes, including child pornography. He also co-sponsored a law that retroactively removed immunity from churches, schools and other charities that negligently hire employees who sexually abuse children.
“He also supported measures to support stem cell research, provide health insurance for mammograms, restrict strip searches and expand eligibility for the Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Aged and Disabled program. […] one of the leaders last year of the effort to save the life of Congo, a German Shepherd condemned as a vicious dog after mauling a landscaper.”
His staff seem to have liked him anyway (apart from the receptionist who found the child abuse images in her desk, unless she was one of the ones who just got tired of it having apparently happened multiple times even there at the office).
“Let me just give you one statement. This is how I feel. I have nothing but respect for Neil. I have no comment on any of the accusations,” said Gleshia Givens, his chief of staff.
He did 1 yr, 2 months of a 5 year sentence (Nov 4, 2010 to Jan 4, 2012) that’s for multiple counts of possession and distribution of CSAM of very young children. Could have faced 30, sentenced to 5. Just one year and two months. I have to wonder if this case resulting in, albeit minimal incarceration is due to the fact it is the sole exception to the apparent media blackout that went on for over 30 years in New Jersey often right in Union County, New Jersey where Joseph Galfy allegedlly drugged and raped Kai. Seeing as he died when, as per New Jersey law, Kai fought him off in a drugged stupor. He didn’t even realize that he was dead until being questioned, as evidenced by an odd sigh of relief when he hears that the attorney, friend of the judge and public defender and prosecutor alike, was dead.
In a plea agreement, the state dropped the official misconduct charge and three of four child pornography counts, and on April 12, 2010, Cohen pleaded guilty to the charge of endangering the welfare of a child by distributing child pornography. Facing 30, sentenced to 5, did 14 months.
only result in google news search for “neil m. cohen” https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/nyregion/30journal.html
missing sites from wikipedia related to sex crimes
3.) In Re Haldusiewicz 185 NJ 278 (2005)
KAI: Deputy NJ Attorney General Joseph J. Haldusiewicz was caught with 996 images of small child porn ON HIS PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE COMPUTER. He got his wrist slapped with a 6 month suspension; then went right back to practicing law. The Newspapers never reported it.
should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months based on his plea of guilty in Superior Court to violation of N.J.S.A 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b) (fourth-degree endangering the welfare of a child), conduct in violation of RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer);
no results in google news search for Joseph Haldusiewicz,
Christmas 2016 Obituary:
“He passed away Dec. 13. Joseph was a career attorney and served as New Jersey Deputy Attorney General under Governor Christine Todd Whitman.”
Of these 77 websites, at least 10 contained child pornography.
No news sites covered these, but the judicial watchdog blog No Ethics covered at least a few, I noted:
“A forensic examination of Joe’s desktop computer found a total of 996 images of child pornography. The examination also observed numerous homosexual and adult pornographic images. The examiner concluded that because of the volume of suspected child pornography found, that much more would be discovered if the examination continued.
6 mo. suspension of law degree, Judge Harold W. Fullilove of the Superior Court criminally punished Joey by presenting him with three years of probation and a $1500 fine. The real punishment in Joey’s opinion was Fullilove’s order that he was prohibited from having any unsupervised contact with children under the age of sixteen.”
Yet another case where it was literally done on office time on state of New Jersey computers:
“Mr. Haldusiewicz was using the shared computer when a BPU employee walked into the office. The defendant appeared ’pale and surprised’ and immediately shut down the computer with the power button instead of doing a proper shutdown.
On July 18, 2003, Judge Fullilove sentenced respondent to a three-year term of probation.
$1,500 and total costs of The court also imposed a fine of $157, and further ordered that
respondent have no unsupervised contact with children under the age of sixteen. Respondent was also directed to continue psychological treatment.
In New Jersey, attorneys who have pleaded to or been found guilty of child pornography offenses have been suspended for periods ranging from six months to two years.”
Even the dissenting opinions only dissent saying “maybe suspend their license a few more months:”
We respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that respondent should receive a six-month suspension for his misconduct. Our disagreement with the majority is two-fold.
First, we do not agree with the majority’s premise that respondent’s illegal conduct was not related to his duties as a public servant. Second, although disciplinary cases are factsensitive and must be decided on a case by case basis, possession, of child pornography is a very serious offense that, absent special circumstances, should be met with a long-term suspension. In our view, the six-month suspension imposed by
the majority is insufficient. In two child-pornography cases decided by the Court in 2003, In re Rosanelli, 176 N.J. 275 (2003) and In re Peck, 177 N.J. 249 (2003), we expressed our opinion that at least a two-year suspension is warranted for this serious crime, which demeans and exploits children.
We are unable to agree with the OAE’s position that discipline should be “enhanced” because of respondent’s (former)’ position as a deputy attorney general. We do not believe we should create two levels of discipline, one for the private bar,
another for state employees, for the same offense. It is true that, in the past, attorneys who held positions .of public trust and were guilty of unethical conduct received enhanced levels of discipline because of their violation of that trust. That,
however, should not be the case here. Respondent’s misconduct had no bearing on his work as a deputy attorney general. […] Although respondent’s misconduct occurred in his workplace, it did not ’ Rb refers to respondent’s brief to us. involve his duties as a public servant. We find it unnecessary and unfair to increase the level ~f discipline for respondent simply because he was a state employee.
4.) In Re Rosanelli 176 NJ 275 (2003)
It arises out of respondent’s failure to file an affidavit of compliance with R~ 1:20-20, following his November 2009 temporary suspension and his September 2010 three-month suspension, both of which remain in effect.
In June 2003, respondent was suspended for six months as a result of his conviction of fourth degree endangering the welfare of a child. In re Rosanelli, 176 N.J. 275 (2003). The criminal charge was the result of respondent’s having downloaded twenty-three pictures of children engaged in various sexual acts. On March 26, 2004, he was reinstated to the practice of law. In re Rosanelli, 179 N.J. 289 (2004). On October 23, 2009, respondent was temporarily suspended, effective November 23, 2009, until he satisfied an award of a district fee arbitration committee and paid a $500 sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee. In re Rosanelli, 200 N.J. 439 (2009). On September 22, 2010, in a default matter, the Supreme Court imposed a three-month suspension on respondent for gross
At first I checked and looked like he was currently listed at https://lawyers.findlaw.com/profile/view/2792834_1 with practice located at 56 Park Place, Newark, NJ. A number was also listed and at the DandB.com business directory listed it was founded 1981, with $95k/annual, 1 employee (he had a solo practice).
Died 2015, (“Donald S. Rosanelli, Esquire”)
Obviously no mention of pedophilia or crimes against children or his long delinquency from the bar for multiple violations:
“Don was involved in various non-profit organizations and causes dedicated to the environment and national policy.”
Community activism is a thread I see multiple times. Especially concerning when one of the crimes against children, victims were groomed and targeted when the wrist-slapped child molester was a “volunteer” coach for a charity league.
Ordered restored to law practice also ordered to pay administrative and other costs to disciplinary review board.
ORDERED that respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law unless and until he satisfies the fee arbitration. award and sanction as Ordered by this Court on October 23, 2009, and September 22, 2010, and it is further
Donald S Rosanelli, same child porn charge as Haldusiewicz, same 6 month suspension, same practicing law. No Newspapers. (no results in google news for “donald s. rosanelli” or “donald rosanelli”
5.) In Re Armour 192 NJ 218 (2006)
KAI: 6 mo. suspension, cited in Neil M. Cohen
Frank L Armour, same as Haldusiewicz and Rosanelli, child porn, 6 months, back to practicing law. No Newspapers.
[At this point, you’re probably realizing their kiddie porn ring has newspaper editors in their pocket. But wait ’til you hear the next one…]
7.) In Re Ruddy 130 NJ 85 (1992)
KAI: Jeffrey P Ruddy sexually assaulted SEVERAL prepubescent boys, but was only suspended from practicing law for 2 years. No Newspapers covered this.
[NO GODDAM MOTHERFUCKING NEWSPAPERS COVERED THIS]
In Re Ruddy 130 NJ 85 (1992)
(Also cited in In re Witherspoon, 203 N.J. 343, 3 A.3d 496 (2010):
Witherspoon-The charges included in the three-count complaint can be summarized briefly. Count One charged respondent David Witherspoon with sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and conflicts of interest, in violation of RPC 1.7(a)(2), RPC 4.4, RPC 8.4(d), and RPC 8.4(g). Count Two charged respondent with practicing law while ineligible based on respondent’s failure to pay the required annual assessment to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, in violation of RPC 5.5(a)(1) and RPC 8.4(d). Count Three charged respondent with recordkeeping violations comprised of failing to maintain fully descriptive client ledgers, failing to conduct monthly trust account reconciliations and failing to maintain a running balance in the trust account checkbook ledger, all in violation of Rule 1:21-6 and RPC 1.15(d). Respondent admitted that he had practiced for more than a year while ineligible, arguing in mitigation that this was merely due to oversight. He also conceded that he had failed to properly maintain his books and records, offering in mitigation that he *346rarely used the trust account because of the nature of his practice and that no client had been harmed or had even complained about the way in which trust funds were handled. We have, in the past, imposed shorter periods of suspension as the sanction for other types of sexual criminal convictions. See, e.g.
Excerpts from caselaw text of Ruddy is below.
In Re Ruddy 130 NJ 85 (1992)
Disciplinary Review Board docket no. DRB 91-391
In June 1987, the Essex County Grand Jury returned a fifteen-count indictment against respondent, charging him with seven counts of second degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:!4-2b) and eight counts of the third degree crime of endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4). The alleged victims were four pre-teenage boys who knew respondent through his service as a volunteer athletic coach. The fifteenth count of the indictment.
The respondent, over a two-and one half year period, without the consent of the children, touched three of them on their bare buttocks and touched a fourth on both his bare buttocks and penis. The children were visitors in respondent’s home when the offenses occurred and ranged in age between ten and twelve years.
June 28, 1991, sentenced to four concurrent terms… of five years’ probation. That’s right, sentenced to probation and psychotherapy and ordered to have no involvement with youth groups (many of these predators were involved in charitable groups and activism, as I mentioned earlier, likely for reputation laundering in part, as well as access to victims in some cases. That was only ordered “while on probation” in the DRB docket.
It was in Ruddy, I ran across “In re X” which perked my interest. Why don’t we have a name for this lawyer who raped his daughters for years?
In In re X, 120 N.__~J. 459
(1990), the attorney had sexually assaulted his three daughters… for years.
“Pursuant to a plea agreement, respondent pled guilty on September 28, 1988, to three counts of second-degree sexual assault. At the plea hearing, he admitted that he had sexually assaulted his three daughters, one of whom was under the age of thirteen years, and two of whom were between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years at the time of the assaults. He was sentenced on February 22, 1989, to three concurrent terms of five years at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center at Avenel.”