In a bizarre legal twist, New York court documents claim that Donald Trump bumped into a lady at the Bergdorf Goodman store in late 1995 or early 1996. I am not from New York, but by 1995, almost every adult in the nation knew who the big celebrities were such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Oprah Winfrey. With that being said, nobody can really comprehend why a billionaire would leave his building and stroll around a department store unnoticed? So, here is the rest of the story.
To begin with, having rogue federal judges making up facts, concocting charges, and trying to suppress civil rights and due process is the beginning of the end of democracy. Lately, judges are going crazy even trying to give special due process to criminals who are not even legally in the nation. [i] Every one of the 40+ nations that I have visited has specified in immigration documents that you need to leave, go to jail, or pay the visa fee if you break the rules by staying too long.
Last week, they just arrested two USA judges for messing around with federal laws. [ii] On a historical note, I actually knew the Federal Judge, Robert Collins who was put in prison for bribery to help drug dealers. [iii] Forensic accountants know that all you need to do is follow the money if a judge treats somebody extremely well or badly for no reason. As such, the FBI Director seems to be launching criminal investigations into New York Judge Merchan and his family. [iv] So the message of this article is that Judges are not immune from prosecution or impeachment.
Additionally, my father was a US Federal Judge who received unanimous approval in the US Senate, and my dad was WWII combat veteran who survived the Battle of the Bulge and helped liberate death camps and free starving prisoners like Dr. Viktor Frankl. [v] As for civil rights, my father would say that both sides should always be able to defend themselves and have lawyers make their case in court. While I personally knew many US federal judges who were mostly Democrat Kennedy-Johnson era judges, the one thing I can say about the federal judges from my youth as they were all staunch advocates of due process and civil rights.
However, we are at a crossroads where some biased judges who had cases with President Trump did everything in their power to: suppress evidence, make baseless decisions, deny basic rights, quash civil rights, violate defense lawyer rights, to boost external evidence to injure a defendant and taint a jury, include prohibited or staged evidence [vi], and to prevent exculpatory evidence from be presented to a jury of peers.
Further, these judges, within judicial districts with a vast majority of democrat activists, seem to have been subject to undue influence from both their community and national press.
Remember, lawsuits and fake evidence can cost this nation billions if not trillions of dollars in productivity such as the fake evidence of the Russia Dossier allegations and widespread wiretaps of Trump and his campaign. Remember, various judges and prosecutors tried to put President Trump in jail for life. They wanted him to die in prison on frivolous bookkeeping charges. They wanted to jail Trump and any of his lawyers for trying to maintain election integrity after 5 states were baselessly flipped away from Trump after election day was already over in 2020 with late counted or fraudulent ballots. [vii]
In an unprecedented twist in American legal history, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of New York City, has become the center of a ever growing misconduct controversy following his judicial conduct in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump. Critics are calling Lewis’s wanderings a "digital raping"—a term now used to describe Kaplan’s alleged overreach in issuing speculative, non-binding statements and concocting a "digital rape" in a case where the jury explicitly did not find rape occurred. Kaplan’s eccentric comments appear to be irrelevant under New York’s existing laws, and Kaplan’s non-binding and bizarre commentary caused a lot of legal problems for journalists, voters, corporations, and Disney shareholders. Moreover, this is the only time in history that I can find where a federal court allowed defamation lawsuits to go against an American citizen claiming their innocence under the First Amendment.
This essay is not about the liability findings of any jury, or a plaintiff’s rights to sue or win a case. This analysis is merely about the damage that a Federal Judge and staffs can do to journalists, voters, the public perceptions, companies like Disney, and shareholders around the world.
The Jury's Verdict vs. The Judge's Commentary
The heart of the controversy stems from the 2023 federal jury verdict, which cleared Donald Trump of the civil charge of rape under New York Penal Law §130.35, which specifically defines rape as non-consensual penile penetration. Instead, the jury found Trump civilly liable for unwanted touching or battery under a broader civil claim that can include any form of unwanted sexual contact such as slapping or bumping into somebody’s buttocks —even over clothing.
However, in Kaplan’s post-trial ruling denying Trump’s motion for a new civil trial, the judge introduced language that seemingly rewrote the law and facts. In a bizarre legal rant, Kaplan claimed that Trump “forcibly digitally penetrated” a defendant in a department store, stating that the jury had found Trump committed "rape as that term is commonly understood." But in this instance, it seems Kaplan was fabricating evidence and law as the jury made no such declaration, and no evidence specifically established a finding of any digital penetration. In Trump’s civil case, the jury concluded that Trump was liable for non-specific, unspecified or unwanted physical contact. The question for judges and prosecutors is whether Kaplans statement about rape is a factual error "per se" or intentional fraud using extremist hyperbole to effect local, state and federal elections.
Under New York’s stringent law, anyone such as Gov. Coumo, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama can be sued for sexual abuse for any type of friendly touching if the recipient did not want to be touched. [viii] Based on the Newsweek article “How Many Presidents Have Been Accused of Sexual Misconduct?”, Judge Kaplan could very possibly accuse the following Presidents of digital rape: Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland, Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
Remember, Joe Biden was explicitly accused of digital rape [ix] by a former employee according to the fact scenarios and Obama was accused of giving drugs to a man and having gay-sex with him. [x] [xi] [xii] [xiii] In some news sources, there were articles saying that the: Weiner Laptop Has Enough Evidence “to Put Hillary … Away for Life”. [xiv] They even considered criminal prosecution for possession or sharing child pornography. [xv] Keep in mind, Judge Kaplan was directly nominated and appointed by Bill Clinton himself who now faces accusations of running around with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions.
This leads to the critical legal concern: Was Judge Kaplan's commentary a type of judicial mindlessness or confusion, where Kaplan’s comments are criminal defamation “per se”, and did Kaplan violate due process and civil rights of a civil defendant whose case is not final or under appeal?
Free Speech, Due Process, and the Weaponization of Defamation
In 2024, the case took an even more controversial turn: Trump was found liable in a second civil case for defamation, merely for repeating that he was innocent of the original allegations. Despite the fact that Trump was cleared of any civil charge of rape, Kaplan allowed the second case to proceed, leading to an $83 million judgment for publicly stating his innocence—a move that many legal scholars see as a judge crucifying the First Amendment regardless of rights of appeal.
President Trump is appealing the $83.3 million defamation judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll in January 2024. Trump posted a $91.6 million bond to cover the judgment during the appeal, which is pending in the appellate court. Also, Trump can still pursue further appeals on the civil verdict. Further, President Trump could request an en banc hearing before the full 2nd Circuit or petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
So how did Kaplan justify allowing a massive defamation case to proceed after a jury found no rape occurred and Trump was simply declaring his innocence of rape? How did the judge or jury disseminate between which claims Trump said were fake as Trump was clearly vindicated of the serious charge ? Doesn’t everyone have a right to say that they didn’t commit any harm or offense?
Critics argue that Kaplan’s personal faux-dicta — or comments made outside the scope of the jury's findings—became the implied legal foundation for many other legal complications, decisions against Trump, tainting juries, and tampering with elections. If this judicial scam becomes precedent, any person can be sued for simply maintaining their innocence, a shocking reversal by rogue judges of both due process and civil rights norms.
ABC News and the $15 Million Fallout
Further complicating matters is the fallout for ABC News, which allegedly settled or lost $15 million in related damages after repeating Judge Kaplan's strange non-binding interpretations of the jury verdict. These fraudulent and speculative statements, never confirmed in law, may have exposed news outlets to civil and criminal liability based on false assumptions stemming from Kaplan’s extra-judicial speculations and confused commentary. [xvi]
ABC, being a division of The Walt Disney Company, is ultimately owned by shareholders. This raises serious questions of corporate liability and fiduciary duty. If ABC was damaged due to reliance on a judge's informal and inaccurate legal interpretations, Disney shareholders may have standing for a class action or derivative suit—particularly if it can be shown that Kaplan’s or his staff’s intentionally deceptive statements directly led to financial harm based on mischaracterized facts.
Judicial Fraud or Institutional Overreach?
What makes this situation so volatile is the question of whether a federal judge can infer or invent facts not stipulated by a jury and publish concocted facts to enable further civil judgments, chill free speech, tamper with elections, and potentially mislead media organizations into further liability. There is no known precedent in federal history where a judge created a civil defamation case solely out of a defendant's denial of civil liability or any guilt, particularly after the defendant was cleared by a jury of the primary civil charges. In this case, the defendant was cleared of the serious charge, and the Judge seemed determined to make the defendant guilty of the serious charge by tainting, altering, and changing facts and law related to other liability.
If proven to be a misrepresentation of the jury’s findings, Judge Kaplan’s extraneous politically biased ramblings could constitute judicial misconduct or constructive fraud, defined in law as a breach of duty that leads another to act to their detriment (see Brown v. Lockwood, 432 N.Y.S.2d 186 (App. Div. 1980)).
Additionally, under New York’s Deceptive Acts and Practices statute (General Business Law §349), there could be an argument that materially misleading statements—especially from public officials in positions of trust—constitute consumer fraud when they influence public discourse or commercial decisions.
If a federal judge includes knowingly false or misleading dicta in an official court order—especially one denying a new trial request, the judge can be prosecuted for a crime simply if the conduct exceeds judicial immunity and can be shown to be willful misconduct or abuse of power. Thus, several federal laws may come into play, depending on the context and consequences. In this context, it appears that Judge Lewis Kaplan may have committed a federal crime by violating 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. If dicta is not just legally unsound but demonstrably false or defamatory, it may warrant disciplinary investigation under this statute by a Judicial Council. Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364)
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent
The civil case of Carroll v. Trump may go down in history not only for its polarizing political overtones but for raising the alarm on judicial boundaries and constitutional rights. If courts are now empowered to override jury verdicts with speculation and fake determinations, and if individuals can be sued for proclaiming their innocence, then we are witnessing the corruption of federal civil law against free speech and due process.
Furthermore, another Federal Judge overseeing the ABC lawsuit, Cecilia Altonaga, ruled that the case against ABC and George Stephanopoulos could proceed because Stephanopoulos’s statements referenced the jury’s specific legal findings, which did not include any rape as defined by law. Allowing this case to be approved for federal court basically deemed Judge Kaplan’s statement as plausibly fraudulent and false under the IQBAL Supreme Court Rules about plausibility. In essence, a federal court issued a ruling that said that Kaplan was probably wrong and guilty of fabricating facts and law. [xvii]
The handling of this case is so obscene, that the casual observer would believe that the Judge is being extorted, threatened, bribed, or his family is getting money to decide a certain way. If this case is not repaired, every man in prison around this nation who maintain their innocence while on appeal for any crime may be sued for defamation based on Kaplan’s incomprehensible decisions and mutterings.
Here also is where the hypothetical case and crimes gets tricky. In federal law & US Courts, many criminal statutes may have been violated by “anti-Trump” offenders by judges and staffs who altered evidence, used fake evidence, tainted evidence, hid exculpatory evidence, staged evidence, used demonstrably fake evidence to taint the record or defraud a jury and get a conviction.
This is one of the many reasons that Merrick Garland’s raid and case in Judge Cannon’s court fell apart with the phony staged photos and the government culpability in tainting evidence and shipping boxes to Florida. [xviii] Remember, in a civil case, a dirty federal judge need only massage the evidence enough to get ½ or 50% of the jury to swing a verdict for a POTE Preponderance of the Evidence. In a criminal trial, you need basically 100% or all jurors to agree. With that being said, an expert federal prosecutor could go after Judge Lewis Kaplan for some really bad federal crimes such as:
1. Evidence Tampering (18 U.S. Code § 1623)
2. False Declarations (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
3. Not Reporting and Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C § 1503)
4. False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C. § 1512)
5. Tampering with Records to Defraud (18 U.S. Code § 1519)
6. Using Fake Records (8 U.S. Code § 1324c)
7. Federal Fraud (18 U.S. Code § 1519)
8. Spoliation (18 U.S. Code § 1519) – Destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence
Judge Kaplan’s "Digital Rape" may not be a violent crime —but it could be something more insidious: the quiet attack on constitutional norms, judicial bullying, and judicial fraud gone wild in the name of political warefare. In sum, Judge Kaplan needs to be reminded that in the U.S. legal system, the jury is the finder of fact. The jury’s verdict on each charge—such as “not liable ”—is binding and final as to that issue under our laws. No judge should undermine democracy and basic civil rights of any citizen regardless of their race, creed or color.
* No legal advice given and comments are law professor & teacher analysis of the facts and law. If anything in this article is not correct, please notify ASAP and provide the correct citation, law, facts, and judicial opinions.
_______________
Commissioner George Mentz JD MBA CILS CWM® is the first in the USA to rank as a Top 50 Influencer & Thought Leader in: Management, PM, HR, FinTech, Wealth Management, and B2B according to Onalytica.com and Thinkers360.com. George Mentz JD MBA CILS is a CWM Chartered Wealth Manager ®, global speaker - educator, tax-economist, international lawyer and CEO of the GAFM Global Academy of Finance & Management ®. The GAFM is a EU accredited graduate body that trains and certifies professionals in 150+ nations under standards of the: US Dept of Education, ACBSP, ISO 21001, ISO 991, ISO 29993, QAHE, ECLBS, and ISO 29990 standards. Mentz is also an award-winning author and award winning graduate law professor of wealth management of one of the top 30 ranked law schools in the USA.Mentzenborg is just a term of art to describe the theory and process by George Mentz JD MBA ChE. CWM is for Chartered Wealth Manager ® and ChE Chartered Economist ® is a credential for economics professionals
© 2025 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.