Archive | Media Bais RSS feed for this section

Amended Complaint – Raven Vs. The Smithsonian Institution Et al.

1 Mar


Hunter v. United States, 30 U.S. 173, 188 (1831)

It is the peculiar province of equity, to compel the execution of trusts.”

U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia

February 10th, 2017

Mr. Julian Marcus Raven                                                                         



                                                                                                              Case No. 16-1682 C    

                                                                                                             Judge Victor J. Wolski

The Smithsonian Institution’s

National Portrait Gallery

Director Kim Sajet

Chief Curator Brandon Brame Fortune

Provost Dr. Richard Kurin

Spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas

The Smithsonian Board Of Regents

Represented by Chief Justice Roberts

(In his capacity as Chancellor)

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Senator John Boozman

Senator Patrick J. Leahy

Senator David Perdue

Representative Xavier Becerra

Representative Tom Cole

Representative Sam Johnson

Mrs. Barbara M. Barrett

Mr. Steve Case

Mr. John Fahey

Mrs. Shirley Ann Jackson

Mr. Robert P. Kogod

Mrs. Risa J. Lavizzo-Mourey

Mr. Michael M. Lynton

Mr. John W. McCarter, Jr.

Mr. David M. Rubenstein

The U.S. Congress Represented By

Senator Roy Blunt (Chairman of The Board

on Rules And Administration.)





  1. Plaintiff, Julian Marcus Raven (“JMR”) for his First Amended Complaint against The Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery (“NPG”) Director Kim Sajet, et al states as follows:




  1. This is a civil action constructed upon law 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for compensatory and punitive damages according to the Biven’s Action case involving Federal Employees; Bivensv. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) only against the Defendant, Director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery Kim Sajet, acting in her individual and official capacity for:


  1. First Amendment Free Speech Violations and Viewpoint Discrimination

42 U.S. Code § 1983


  1. Uttering False and Partial Official Opinions/Statements Acting In The Capacity Of A Federal Employee Under The Color Of Law


18 U.S. Code § 1001


  1. Violations of the Federal and Smithsonian Rules of Ethical Conduct


  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

Articles 1,5,8,11,13,14


  1. Wrongful Exclusion & Deprivation of Congressionally Created Rights of Participation.


5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (2)(A)(B)(C) (D) (E)


  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duties as a ‘Trustee Delegate Officer’ or ‘Functional Fiduciary’ of the Smithsonian Board Of Regents, Co-Trustees and Co-Fiduciaries with the Congress Of The United States of the Will and Testament of Mr. James Smithson.

Breaches include:

  1. Breach of Duty of Loyalty
  2. Breach of Duty of Care
  3. Breach of Duty of Impartiality

15 U.S. Code § 80a–35 – Breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1109 – Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1105 – Liability for breach of co-fiduciary

The Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

“The ERISA statute defines “fiduciary” not in terms of formal trusteeship,

but in functional terms of control and authority over the plan. 2

An ERISA “functional” fiduciary, according to the federal courts,

includes anyone who exercises discretionary authority over the plan’s

management, anyone who exercises authority or control over the

plan’s assets, and anyone having discretionary authority or responsibility

in the plan’s administration.” 2. Mertens v. Hewitt Assoc., 508 U.S. 248, 262 (1993).

  1. Credit Managers Ass’n v. Kenesaw Life & Accident Ins. Co., 809 F.2d 617, 625–626

(9th Cir. 1987).



  1. Failing To abide by The Administrative Procedure Act, The Public Information Act Agency Rules & Statues


5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B)




  1. This action against Dr. Richard Kurin, Linda St. Thomas, Chief Curator Brandon Brame Fortune in their individual capacity as Trustee Delegate Officers or ‘Functional Fiduciaries’ of the Will and Trust Of James Smithson and the Board Of Regents members and the U.S. Congress represented by Congressman Roy Blunt in their capacity as Trust ‘Legatees’ and Co-Trustees of the private and individual Will and Trust Of Mr. James Smithson are hereby accused of violating Rules & Laws pertaining to:


A: Fiduciary Duties pertaining to Trusts, Trustees and Trustee Delegates


28 U.S. Code § 959- Trustees may be sued

15 U.S. Code § 80a–35 – Breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1109 – Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1105 – Liability for breach of co-fiduciary

B: Federal And Smithsonian Institution Rules of Ethical employee conduct

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.


The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

Articles 1,5,8,11,13,14


  1. Wrongful Exclusion


5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (2)(A)(B)(C) (D) (E)


D: Failing To abide by the Administrative Procedure Act, The Public Information Act, Agency Rules & Statues


5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B)









  1. In plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff stated “The Court has jurisdiction over these parties and these matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1491(a)(1)” in harmony with plaintiff’s motion to transfer case to the US District Court in the District of Columbia; plaintiff declares that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over these matters. Thus the plaintiff petitions to court to render a decision on the above mentioned motion so as to move this complaint to the appropriate venue, The U.S. District Court of The District Of Columbia.





  1. Plaintiff pro se Julian Marcus Raven is a citizen of Elmira, New York and a professional artist. Plaintiff is the artist who painted the Donald Trump portrait/painting in the summer of 2015 about which this case is.



  1. The Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet

Chief Curator Brandon Brame Fortune, Provost Dr. Richard Kurin and

Spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas in their individual capacities are primarily Smithsonian Trust Delegate Officers according to article 7 of the Act Of Congress that established the Smithsonian Institution. Since the Smithsonian Institution is a trust instrumentality of the United States, defendants also function as employees of the Federal Government.


  1. The entire Smithsonian Board Of Regents, Represented by Chief Justice Roberts

(in their individual capacities and in their capacities as Regent Trustees) including Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Senator John Boozman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Senator David Perdue

Representative Xavier Becerra, Representative Tom Cole, Representative Sam Johnson, Mrs. Barbara M. Barrett, Mr. Steve Case, Mr. John Fahey, Mrs. Shirley Ann Jackson, Mr. Robert P. Kogod, Mrs. Risa J. Lavizzo-Mourey, Mr. Michael M. Lynton, Mr. John W. McCarter, Jr., Mr. David M. Rubenstein are Co-Trustees of the Will and Trust of Mr. James Smithson.


  1. The U.S. Congress represented by chairman of the Committee On Rules And Administration Congressman Roy Blunt are Trust ‘Legatees’ of The Will and Trust of James Smithson. (Article 1 of the 1846 Act Of Congress) Said committee has functional oversight over the Smithsonian Institution.


  1. Article 2: “The Government Of The United States is merely a trustee to carry out the design of the testator.” ‘Programme Of Organization’ by Secretary Joseph Henry adopted on December 13th, 1847 by the Board Of Regents.


  1. Article 3: “The institution is not a national establishment, as is frequently supposed, but the establishment of an individual, and is to bear and perpetuate his name.” ‘Programme Of Organization’ by Secretary Joseph Henry adopted on December 13th, 1847 by the Board Of Regents.


  1. “The Smithsonian Institution is an establishment based upon the private foundation (italics Added) of James Smithson, a British subject, which was accepted by the United States in trust. This establishment was created by an act of Congress, under which act, with one or two unimportant modifications, it has since been governed. The United States Government has, from time to time, assigned to it important functions, and Congress has passed laws and made appropriations in support of these. While, therefore, it is a private foundation (Italics Added), of which the Government is trustee, it has in itself an extensive legislative history.” S.P. Langley Secretary Of The Smithsonian Institution, The Smithsonian Institution Documents to its origin and history. 1835-1899 By William J. Rhees


  1. The nature of the trust bequeathed by Mr. James Simpson for the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge’ will only ever end once all knowledge has been ‘increased and diffused among men.’ Until such a time, the original intent of the testator and the establishment’s founding mission and legal structure remain as originally enacted by Congress on August 10th, 1846;


  1. “James Smithson, esquire, of London, in the Kingdom of Great Britain, having by his last will and testament given the whole of his property to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the “Smithsonian Institution,” an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men; and the United States having, by an act of Congress, received said property and accepted said trust; Therefore, For the faithful execution of said trust, according to the will of the liberal and enlightened donor;” 29th Congress, 1st Session, August 10th, 1846


  1. The “courts have broad discretion over trustees and trust assets at all stages of litigation. This broad discretion stems from the fact that beneficiaries have equitable title to trust property and disputes involving trust assets are actually equitable actions. Firmly established case law gives courts broad discretion over trustees or other fiduciaries that have legal title to property that is the subject of an equitable action. Hunter v. United States, 30 U.S. 173, 188 (1831) (“It is the peculiar province of equity, to compel the execution of trusts.”); see alsoHopkins v. Granger, 52 Ill. 504, 510 (1869) (“It is one of the oldest heads of chancery jurisdiction, to execute and control trusts and trust funds.”)”… The courts’ broad discretion means that the remedies available in a trust-related dispute—even when there is no actual loss—broadly include instructing the trustee about the terms of the trust, setting aside decisions of the trustee, removing the trustee, and appointing a temporary fiduciary with highly customizable powers. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 95, cmt. c.”


  1. The U.S. Congress accepting the role as Trust ‘Legatee’ of the Will of James Smithson did appoint a Board Of Regents as Co-Trustees of the Will Of James Smithson. The Board Of Regents in their official capacity as Trustee ‘Regents’ are ‘merely’ Trustees (of a private trust or foundation! Added), (“The Government Of The United States is merely a trustee to carry out the design of the testator” Article 2, Programme Of Organization, Joseph Henry, 1847) rendering any other official government title, function, authority or immunity they may possess, powerless in the execution of their duties as Trustee ‘Regents’, (Smithsonian Congressional Enactments 1846) thus removing all appeals to any type of immunity whether, absolute, judicial or qualified immunity.


  1. The merits of this case against Director Sajet alone and her violations of 42 U.S. Code § 1983 may invoke an initial attempt at a ‘qualified immunity’ defense, but her actions clearly fulfill the two step test Government Officials must meet in order to puncture the veil of a ‘qualified immunity’ defense.


  1. 1st- That a First Amendment Statutory right was violated. This can be clearly seen in the willful violation of plaintiff’s political free speech. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  2. 2nd That Director Sajet a ‘Covered Executive’ at the Smithsonian Institution was clearly briefed on her legal responsibilities under the Federal Statues of Ethical Conduct by the Smithsonian Office Of General Counsel at the outset of her tenure at the Smithsonian Institution. The director acted with full knowledge of the law. Director Sajet’s motive can be clearly discerned by her actions and by her anti-Trump bias, that outside of plaintiff’s case are documented on the NPGDirector’s Twitter feed, @NPGDirector. The Director’s ‘intent’ can be seen in her actions towards plaintiff in the manner of her phone call and the contents of her objections, which reveal a hostile anti-Trump political bias. The ‘back tracking’ during the phone conversation reveals the Director clearly ‘knew’ what she was saying was unlawful. The Director’s final taunting remarks are evidence of her motive. The Court will determine that the Director either ‘knew’ that she was willfully violating plaintiff’s 1st Amendment civil rights or that she was recklessly acting with complete disregard to plaintiff’s 1st Amendment civil rights. It is either one or the other and yet both standards are sufficient to puncture the veil of a qualified immunity defense.





  1. On July 9th, 2015 he embarked upon a creative artistic and political journey that involved painting the now historic, patriotic, predictive and symbolic portrait of then presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. The nearly 8×16 foot painting in acrylics on stretched canvas and beautifully framed in a decorative red, white and blue frame became the most recognized pro-Trump political portrait/painting during the 2015-2016 campaign. From New York to Los Angeles, reactions to the painting often ended with the comments that this painting should end up in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in Washington D.C.   After an historic grassroots political campaign, candidate Trump became the President of The United States on November 8th, 2016. What followed was the disturbing and disheartening experience with the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery and The Smithsonian Institution.


  1. On November 21st, 2016, less than two weeks after the election of Donald J. Trump, plaintiff did go in person to the Smithsonian Affiliate in Corning, New York, The Rockwell Museum of Art to request assistance submitting an application to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery (Hereinafter “NPG”) to show his Trump Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ as part of the festivities for the 2017 Inauguration. Plaintiff was told that Director Swain and Executive Smithsonian Liaison Campbell were at lunch. Upon his return after lunch he was told they were both now gone for the day. It seemed odd to the plaintiff!


  1. Plaintiff did follow up with an application by email to the attention of Director Kristen Swain and Rockwell/Smithsonian liaison Patty Campbell. Upon no reply after a week, plaintiff did go in person again on Monday the 28th of November with application and prints in hand. This time Executive Smithsonian Liaison Campbell did come down. The expression on her face was very cold, it was as if her face was frozen, no emotions were present. No warmth at the first personal meeting, just an expression devoid of emotional warmth. The cold shoulder was now evident!


  1. Plaintiff asked if she had received the email application to which she said she had. Executive Liaison Campbell was quick to inform plaintiff that since The Rockwell Museum was a ‘non-profit’ organization they could not get involved with ‘politics’. Plaintiff was quick to remind Ms. Campbell that at the end of October, 2016 less than two weeks before the general election the Rockwell Museum had Hollywood Actor, Democrat Political Activist, DNC speaker, Bernie Sanders Activist, Former Whitehouse Director for Youth Engagement under President Obama, Kal Penn come as a special guest speaker to the museum. Kal Penn spoke on ‘Art and Politics’.


  1. Executive Smithsonian Liaison Campbell was stopped in her tracks! Plaintiff asked for help since time was passing quickly with just under two months before the election. Plaintiff’s request was for either help forwarding the application to the NPG or an invitation to be involved and become a sponsor of the event since it could have a great and positive impact for our depressed local upstate New York region.


  1. The next day, Director Kristen Swain responded via a short email. She informed plaintiff that the Rockwell Museum was unable to help since they did not have the ‘resources’! Out of curiosity plaintiff spoke with Actor Kal Penn’s agent to find out what is would cost to have him come and speak at a similar event to what just took place at the Rockwell Museum just a few weeks prior. Plaintiff was told it would cost $60,000.00!


  1. Plaintiff subsequently did file an official complaint with the Smithsonian Director of Affiliations Harold Closter against the Rockwell Museum for their overt anti-conservative, anti-Trump bias and for failing to simply assist plaintiff in submitting his application to the NPG. The Rockwell Museum claimed to be an affiliate of the Smithsonian connecting our community to the Smithsonian. Director Closter did inform plaintiff that same day, the 30th of November 2016, that had forwarded the email as requested. Out of all the officials involved in this fiasco, Director Closter behaved with courtesy and professionalism!




  1. Upon receiving confirmation of said application Mr. Raven did call the Director of the Smithsonian NPG Kim Sajet on the morning of December 1st. 2016 at around 11:20 a.m. to inquire as to the ‘application’ process. Mr. Raven wanted to ensure that there was nothing lacking in the 20 plus page application document, which included letters of recommendation from elected representatives from upwards of 200,000 people. These included Congressman Tom Reed, New York Senator Tom O’Mara, Elmira Mayor Dan Mandell, New York GOP chairpersons, Cox, Cady, King, Strange, radio personality Frank Acomb and art collectors Gates/Davis.


  1. Plaintiff did learn that the Director was not available, that she was not in. After leaving his phone number with the assistant to the Director of the NPG, since she informed plaintiff that the Director was not in or available that day. Plaintiff expected a call the next day or thereafter to inform him of any further steps necessary for the application process.


  1. Within 15 minutes of the initial phone call to the assistant, plaintiff’s phone rang. It was a call from the same number plaintiff had just dialed. It was to his surprise Director Kim Sajet! The Director’s actions evince a “Specific Intent” by responding so quickly to plaintiff’s call, less than 24 hours since the application and less than 15 minutes after plaintiff’s initial call. Remember plaintiff was told the Director was not even in or available! Something motivated the Director to make special effort.


  1. What was the motive for this call? Could this rapid response mean a keen and excited interest in plaintiff’s application, proposal and desire to show his Trump painting, due to the fast approaching inauguration? Could this call be the answer to the ‘information request’ to an officer delegate of the Board Of Regents and Trustees, plaintiff had made as a ‘beneficiary’ of the Will Of James Smithson?

No, instead the call immediately manifested another “specific intent” and was instantly thus a violation because plaintiff’s ‘information request’ was ignored, and the ensuing dialogue by-passed said request. The call had the feeling that the Director wanted to give the plaintiff a piece of her mind.


Breach of Duty of Loyalty, Duty of Care, Duty to Disclose

Violation of Article 5 U.S. Code § 552 (a) (C)

Violation of Federal & Smithsonian Standards Of Ethical Conduct


29 This surprise call would lead to an eleven-minute dialogue and at times argument with the NPG Director, as Dir. Sajet would lay out her partial, dishonest, arbitrary, Smithsonian standards ignoring, violating and personal anti-Trump ‘objections’ as to why the NPG would not even consider plaintiff’s painting for the application process. The Painting was refused even before given a fair and objective consideration according to Smithsonian Institution standards.


  1. Plaintiff was left stunned, as if stung by a swarm of bees!




  1. These objections ranged from its size being ‘too big’ to partially and incorrectly citing an NPG standard for acceptance, to claiming the image was too ‘Pro-Trump’, ‘Too Political’, ‘not neutral enough’ and finally ‘no good’.




  1. Without any cordial, official written response, Director Sajet by phone began to object to the Trump Portrait. It is clear from the first objection about the size that the director was rushing to judgment and expressing a personal, partial and biased opinion. Nowhere in the Smithsonian Institution’s standards of acceptance for portraiture is there any mention of supposed appropriate sizes of paintings!   The hasty phone call less than 24 hours after the application had been received, calls into question whether Director Sajet even consulted with Chief Curator Brandon Brame Fortune or any other official at that time, as is required by Smithsonian procedures when considering a painting, this fact is yet to be discovered.
  2. Smithsonian FAQ “The Smithsonian acquires thousands of objects and specimens each year for its collection holdings through donation, bequest, purchase, exchange, and field collecting. The Institution accepts only items that truly fill a gap in the collections and then only after careful consideration by museum curators and directors. Because of this rigorous selection ‘process’, the Smithsonian adds to its collections only a tiny percentage of what it is offered.”


  1. Surprisingly, after about five minutes into the heated discussion, Director Sajet when repeatedly challenged about her objection to the size of the painting, began to backtrack and eventually apologized for her ridiculous objection! This erratic behavior is evidence of a deliberate, intentional, hasty and partial personal opinion, one not based or grounded in Smithsonian Institution Standards! The sudden change of opinion to her objection indicated that Director Sajet clearly knew it was wrong what she was saying and doing at the time, and so in the midst of her objecting she knew her objection was incongruous with the reality somewhere in the Smithsonian NPG. This self-incriminating and guilty behavior made plaintiff investigate, and sure enough an apparent reason was discovered. The evidence discovered, proves the initial objection was absolutely partial and biased against plaintiff JMR and his Trump Portrait. It was as if Director Sajet was eager to rush to judgment and was eager to personally give plaintiff her biased objections. It is still to be discovered if Chief Curator Fortune agreed with the objection.


  1. What was Director Sajet hiding? For an objection about scale from an institution whose mission is for the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge’ again seems contrary. How can you get an ‘increase’ by limiting the size! An ‘Increase’ when applied to the pictorial arts would include the size of the art as a quantifiable factor when measuring ‘increase’. It would be similar to objecting to a T-Rex skeleton as ‘too big’ or a giant golden nugget as ‘too big’ or Michael Angelo’s statue of David as ‘too big!’ or the two huge 6 x 8 foot (93”x75”) portraits of President Obama by photographer Chuck Close, that were loaned to the NPG to be shown in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery specifically for the 2013 ‘Inauguration Celebration’ of then re-elected President Obama! (Ex. CCC)



  1. At said inauguration two huge Obama Portraits were secured for the celebrations. From the Smithsonian website we read; “Diptych of President Barack Obama by Chuck Close. The renowned artist Chuck Close created two photographs of Barack Obama and transferred them onto two large-scale (93-by-75-inch) jacquard tapestries. In conjunction with the Inauguration, this diptych has been loaned to the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery by Ian and Annette Cumming.”(Italics & bold added) (Ex. VVV)


  1. Without knowing anything about the 2013 ‘Inauguration Celebration’ at the NPG, plaintiff wrote this on December 7th, 2016, at the end of his appeal to the Board Of Regents upon his rejection by NPG Director Kim Sajet: “Please be considerate of the fact that January 20th, 2017 is fast approaching and it would be most fitting to pictorially and artistically celebrate and coincide with this historic inauguration of the 45th president Of The United States, President Elect Donald J. Trump, by having my portrait on display in the National Portrait Gallery.” This was plaintiff’s offer to ‘loan’ his portrait for the celebration of the Trump Inauguration. (Ex. RRR)


  1. Since a clear ‘Portrait lending’ precedent for a Presidential Inauguration was established in 2013, a right of participation was created, a participation in inaugural celebrations for artist who have created portraits of soon to be inaugurated Presidents. These artists/collectors could of right apply to have their work shown for the inauguration. If there were multiple pieces offered, then a selection process would take place. But if there was only one painting offered, then by default that would automatically qualify as the loaned presidential portrait.


  1. ‘TOO BIG’ plaintiff was told, and it turns out that the ‘loaned’ diptych art work measured nearly 105 square feet of occupied wall space including the gap in between the two huge Obama portraits. Without the decorative frame, the Trump Portrait measures just shy of 105 square feet, nearly exactly the same size! (Ex. EEE)


Wrongful Exclusion: NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE, ETC. V. CAMPBELL (1981) United States District Court, D. Columbia. 504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981) Gesell, District Judge


18 U.S. Code § 1001 – (FALSE)Statements or entries generally

14 Standards Of Ethical Conduct- Smithsonian

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

Articles 1,5,8,11,13,14





  1. Director Sajet continued, saying the Trump portrait was disqualified from consideration since it was not created from life, partially citing a Smithsonian Standard for portraiture acceptance. At this point Mr. Raven was in disbelief. Plaintiff immediately cited the Smithsonian reception and showing of the Shepherd Fairey Obama ‘Poster’ on January 13th, 2009. Plaintiff being intimately acquainted with the story of its creation, appealed to the poster as evidence that the NPG surely did show work not taken from life. At this point, since the Director’s second objection was now questioned, the Director repeatedly insisted that the Shepherd Fairey political campaign poster, had in fact been created from a live sitting by the artist with then Candidate Barrack Obama! This is absolutely false! The Director did not back down on this statement, thus clearly violating federal law regarding the making of false statements by federal employees and the General Principles of Ethical Conduct for Federal Employees.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 – (FALSE) Statements or entries generally

14 Standards Of Ethical Conduct- Smithsonian

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

Articles 1,5,8,11,13,14


  1. This was where the NPG Director twisted the truth to support her bias in favor of the Obama poster and obviously Barack Obama. One only has to examine the criminal conviction of the artist in question regarding the ‘Hope’ poster, Shepherd Fairey to discover that the ‘Hope’ poster was a digitized photograph taken from the internet from AP photographer Mannie Friedman. It turns out that the ‘requirement from life’ rule Director Sajet cited was partially true, the Smithsonian standard did require portraits to be from life. But as with this entire story, the guideline was quoted partially since it says; “that works must be the best likeness possible; original portraits from life, if possible;”


  1. It turns out that out of the 4 Donald Trump ‘portraits’ the NPG owns, only 1 of the 4 was actually taken from life. It turns out that one of the four ‘portraits’ is actually a cartoon sketch of Donald Trump! Either Director Sajet was unaware of the existing stock of the Donald Trump portraits in her possession and of their back story regarding originality from life or she deliberately obscured the truth and made up the argument in her repeated efforts to deny plaintiff entry into the application process? Federal Employees And Smithsonian Employees are ordered by law to be ‘Loyal To the Constitution’, ‘Honest’, ‘impartial’ etc. in their decisions and conduct. Already Director Sajet is in violation of articles 8 regarding being ‘impartial’, The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct of the FEDERAL Gov. 5 C.F.R §2635.101 (b)




  1. Director Sajet now moved to her next partial and biased objection. The Trump Portrait was too ‘PRO-TRUMP’! ‘It is not neutral enough’ Director Sajet continued. Not only are Smithsonian Employees to be impartial, they are to follow the clearly established ‘standards’ for judging or testing a work of art. The ‘Hope’ Poster, created for Barrack Obama’s political campaign in 2008 is nothing but ‘PRO-OBAMA’. The whole essence of the Obama poster was to portray Presidential candidate Barrack Obama in the most favorable political light, as a visionary leader gazing upwards! What would be the point if it was not ‘PRO-OBAMA’? Again clear and blatant bias and partiality is demonstrated in this arbitrary objection.


  1. In the 2013 ‘Celebration’ Inauguration of President Obama, the NPG hung TWO huge 6×8 foot photo portraits of President Obama side by side along with the ‘Hope’ poster from 2008 a total of 3 ‘PRO’ Obama portraits no less! And I am told that one portrait of Donald Trump is ‘TOO PRO TRUMP’? This is obviously another false, biased and partial statement!


Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (91-2024), 508 U.S

18 U.S. Code § 1001 – (FALSE)Statements or entries generally

14 Standards Of Ethical Conduct- Smithsonian

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

Articles 1,5,8,11,13,14







  1. Director Sajet, from the outset of the phone call mentioned the imagery of the eagle in the painting in a negative light. Without saying it, Director Sajet was implying the painting was too patriotic. Whilst complaining that the trump Painting was not ‘neutral enough’ the Director repeatedly mentioned the George Washington Lansdowne portrait in the NPG since it too has a fully developed background(It turns out it is layered in symbolism like the Trump Portrait!) and is not just a portrait of the face of the subject. It was as if Director Sajet was compelled to excuse the Washington portrait whilst objecting to the Trump portrait since it contradicted her objection to the Trump portrait’s content. An analysis of the Washington portrait reveals a much large ratio of background and body to the shoulders, head and face than is contained in the Trump Portrait which is about 40% head and face. An analysis of the Trump cartoon sketch, part of the 4 portraits owned by the NPG also reveals another contradiction to the Directors objections as to the ratio of background verses head, face and shoulders.


  1. Again, to be noted, Director Sajet’s opinion was devoid of Smithsonian Institution standards. Eventually the Director came out and said it. The Trump Portrait was in fact ‘TOO POLITICAL’! Again to plaintiff’s astonishment, the NPG Director had now objected to the historical context, the political and presidential campaign of 2015-16, the unprecedented campaign of Donald J. Trump and to the content of the Trump Portrait. The American Flag, the Bald Eagle, the representation of the geographical United States, The Statue of Liberty are some of the American symbols used in the narrative of the Trump Portrait and these are too political? They are patriotic rather than political. The title ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ is relating to Trump’s character politician or not!




  1. Objecting to the Trump Painting about its content on political grounds as ‘too political’ is an objection by a Federal Government employee and senior Director of a Federal Institution to political speech the Director deems ‘politically incorrect’ or unacceptable. If the NPG had a standard forbidding all political content, portraits, political campaign posters etc. that could be reason to reject the painting. But by allowing, accepting, celebrating and showing the Obama ‘HOPE’ poster in 2009, 2013 and by accepting the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign poster legally binding political campaign art precedent was established at the NPG.

Wrongful Exclusion: NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE, ETC. V. CAMPBELL (1981) United States District Court, D. Columbia. 504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981) Gesell, District Judge


  1. By accepting the political art from Democratic Washington ‘super lobbyists’ who said on Jan. 7th 2009 “It seemed like a historic moment for the country, and a chance to do something for art and Democrats,” Tony Podesta, brother of transition co-chairman John Podesta” when discussing donating the ‘Hope’ poster to the National Portrait Gallery. And since the political art was created by confessed ‘hard core left wing activists’ for a political campaign about a Democrat left wing activist political presidential candidate and then President Elect Obama, a clear political campaign art precedent was established!


  1. The NPG made it clear it accepted art/gifts/political beliefs/speech from Democrat left wing activists. The Obama poster is a highly political work of art, it even contains a campaign slogan ‘HOPE’ used for campaigning for Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama as the candidate of the people’s ‘hope’.


  1. By rejecting the Trump Painting as ‘too political’ the NPG Director Kim Sajet has censored and deprived plaintiffs 1st Amendment rights of political free speech in a forum for the people and by the people where political artistic pictorial speech is clearly accepted, promoted and celebrated. As an artist, politically conservative, right wing political activist and member of the Republican party plaintiff’s rights have been clearly violated and said Director has issued another false statement! (Obama poster at the NPG)

First Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States ‘Congress shall make no law…’ 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights

18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally

Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (91-2024), 508 U.S



“NO GOOD”    


  1. After Director Sajet’s objections were all refuted, her final and seemingly desperate, personal and arbitrary opinion was that she did ‘not like’ the portrait and the Director said that it was ‘no good’, again showing her personal bias against plaintiff and his painting. Again ignoring the Smithsonian Standard; “Thus, the standards for accepting portraits varied considerably from other galleries. Even today, in every instance, the historical significance of the subject is judged before the artistic merit of the portrait, or the prominence of the artist.” But regardless of what the Smithsonian has to say, Director Sajet was to have the last word and that was final!





  1. Based upon Director Sajet’s final taunting words to the plaintiff this legal complaint has been made. The final words were something like this. ‘I am the Director of the National Portrait Gallery, this application will not go forward or even be considered, you can appeal my decision all you want…’ 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights under the color of law…


“Write down exactly what was said to you by the offender, taunt reveals motive” according to the Bakersfield Police Department on their Hate Crimes brochure.



  1. It is clear that this type of statement evinces an abuse of authority, in that all procedural ‘due process’ was stripped away from plaintiff Raven, from the Smithsonian Institution and from the Smithsonian Trust Beneficiaries, the American People. Plaintiff was deprived of his constitutional right of free political speech while others of a different opinion were permitted, his rights were willfully & recklessly ignored, cancelled, trampled and violated! Everything the Smithsonian Institution stands for, the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge for all men’, the Smithsonian Board of Regents approved standards for acceptance of portraiture, the rights of participation, the rights of procedural ‘due process’ that is plaintiff’s right to participate in the process of consideration were thrown out of consideration.

504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981)


  1. Telling plaintiff that the work is ‘no good’ is a partial, personal opinion and a false statement in the context of the Smithsonian Standards of acceptance since artistic merit is not a criterion for acceptance at the NPG.

This can be seen by Trump Cartoon ‘Portrait’ which is part of the NPG portrait collection!

18 U.S. Code § 1001 – (FALSE)Statements or entries generally

14 Standards Of Ethical Conduct- Smithsonian

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

Articles 1,5,8,11,13,14




  1. Once Congress appointed Co-Trustees, the Board Of Regents, created ‘standards’ or ‘guidelines’ for acceptance of portraits at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, the Smithsonian Trustees created certain ‘rights’ of participation for Trust Beneficiaries and for Citizen Participation. Those standards gave the right to any Beneficiary of the Will of James Smithson and thus any United States Citizen to participate in the gallery so long as they met those standards.

504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981) Section 11 (Individual Right)

  1. Smithsonian Institution FAQ from SI website: “The Smithsonian acquires thousands of objects and specimens each year for its collection holdings through donation, bequest, purchase, exchange, and field collecting. The Institution accepts only items that truly fill a gap in the collections and then only after careful consideration by museum curators and directors. Because of this rigorous selection ‘process’, the Smithsonian adds to its collections only a tiny percentage of what it is offered.”
  2. The 1963 commission clearly said “Thus, the standards for accepting portraits varied considerably from other galleries.”
  3. Please see The Smithsonian NPG Bias Chart for a list of standards.



  1. By ignoring those ‘standards’ Director Sajet has become judge, jury and executioner using her own personal and biased anti-Trump opinion for rejection or acceptance. As a Trustee Delegate, ‘Functional Fiduciary’, Director Sajet has violated all of the duties of Fiduciary responsibility under the vast panoply of laws that govern the business & behavior of Trusts, Trustees and their Delegates. As an employee of the Federal Government Director Sajet has trampled plaintiff’s rights as beneficiary of the Will Of James Smithson and a U.S. Citizen according to 42 U.S. Code § 1983. and violated the Federal and Smithsonian standards of Ethical Conduct.





  1. In NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE, ETC. V. CAMPBELL (1981) United States District Court, D. Columbia. 504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981) Gesell, District Judge

a clearly settled legal case establishes plaintiff’s claims to ‘wrongful exclusion’ as authoritative.   Opinion by District Judge Gesell clearly establishes the merits of this case since in said case(504F.), plaintiffs were excluded because of a faulty interpretation of ‘vague’ standards of participation in a Government established program.


  1. In this case, plaintiff Raven is not arguing against the vague interpretation of a statute, but against the complete violation and ignoring of the statutes of participation. Statutes in plaintiff Raven’s case are clear and not in the slightest bit vague. Since plaintiffs in said case (504 F.) prevailed in the District Court in the District of Columbia in their case(504 F.) for a vague interpretation of a single statue, how much more should plaintiff in this case?


  1. Case (504 F.) marvelously parallels plaintiff Raven’s claims in many ways in the principles of the argument, the rights of participation, the conditions for participation, arbitrary decisions, the First Amendment violations and Rights of participation, The burden upon government behavior according to the Administration Procedure Act and for the remedies to rectify and review said case when such violations occur and the final judgment; a. “Procedures and requirements for the Campaign are set forth in the Manual on Fund-Raising Within the Federal Service for Voluntary Health and Welfare Agencies. Organizations participate in the CFC on either the national or local level. Eligibility is determined by officials of the Office of Personnel Management, successor to the Civil Service Commission, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Manual.”; b. “It behooves the government officials responsible for the program to re-examine the basic premises on which the program was established” c.the Court finds that defendant’s rejection of plaintiffs’ applications to the CFC, based solely on a failure to satisfy the “direct services” requirement of section 5.21 of the Manual, must be set aside pursuant to this Court’s review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act” d. “Defendant shall not reject any pending or future application of plaintiffs on this ground.” Judge Gesell, U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.


  1. Upon further research of the multiple, clearly established, congressionally established principles/criteria of acceptance of ‘art’ into the Smithsonian NPG both in the ‘Programme Of Organization’ from 1847 and in the standards set by the 1962/62 Congressionally appointed commission for the creation of the National Portrait Gallery, plaintiff was further disturbed by the undocumented and personal call he had received from Director Sajet.


  1. Plaintiff had presented a publically supported, 20 plus page written application to the NPG. Mr. Raven’s application would be cast aside by one bizarre eleven minute, anti-Trump, arbitrary, unfounded and personally opinionated phone call by the NPG Director Kim Sajet. The phone call had more in common with a private art gallery than a National Public Trust belonging to the people of the United States, 60 PLUS MILLION of whom voted for Donald J. Trump! Arbitrary personal tastes and bias are the norm in the subjective art world. They should not be part of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery which should and always be impartial. The 1963 commission clearly said “Thus, the standards for accepting portraits varied considerably from other galleries.”




  1. As the Director of the Smithsonian NPG, Director Kim Sajet bears all of the fiduciary responsibilities as a Trustee Delegate Officer, ‘Functional Fiduciary’ of the Trust of James Smithson appointed by the Board Of Regents through the Smithsonian Secretary according to Sec. 7 of the Smithsonian Congressional Enactments of the 29th Congress, 1st Session on the August 10th, 1846.


  1. Trustees are legally bound to their duties as fiduciaries and upon choosing a Delegate Officer or ‘Functional Fiduciary’ are under great responsibility to choose carefully and prudently and then supervise, since they stand to be held liable for the conduct of the Delegate Officer. Delegate Officers are ultimately accountable to the Trustees for their actions as the trustees become liable for their conduct.


Violation of the Duty Of Loyalty, Duty Of Care, Duty Of Impartiality, Duty Of Prudence…


  1. Director Sajet’s actions in this case on a multitude of levels violate the Director’s Fiduciary Duties as a Trustee Delegate Officer and ‘Functional Fiduciary’ to the Beneficiaries. The Duty of Loyalty, Duty of Care, Duty of Impartiality, Duty of Prudence, Duty to Disclose to the Testator and to the Beneficiaries for the ‘…increase and diffusion of knowledge among men’ is sadly absent. Director Sajet has shown a complete intentional, willful and reckless disregard for any notions of fiduciary duty due the plaintiff. Nothing in Director Sajet’s actions show any conscious care on any level of duty to the Will of Smithson or to the Beneficiaries of the will. Over 60 MILLION U.S. Citizens and Beneficiaries of the Will Of Smithson voted for Donald Trump and for now have been barred from participation by Director Sajet’s overt anti-Trump bias in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. The refusal to show the fine art, hand painted Trump Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ in lieu of the dated 1989 photo of Apple tossing Trump photo was a deliberate slight to create ‘zero’ interest in visiting the National Portrait Gallery! Who would go out of their way to see that? Art has the power to create conversation and speak on levels where ordinary dialogue fails. Such dialogue was deprived from the People!


  1. Director Sajet’s final words to the plaintiff were something like this; ‘I am the Director Of the Smithsonian Institution, this application will go no further, you can appeal my decision all you want!’





  1. As a result of the Director’s actions and taunting final words, Plaintiff did appeal by email to the Board of Regents, the Trustees of the Smithsonian Institute, exercising his right as a beneficiary of the Will of James Smithson through the Chief Of Staff to the Regents Ms. Wilkinson. In the now 40 plus page appeal to each member of the Regents plaintiff did lay out his case against the partial, biased, anti-Trump, arbitrary and taunting decision of Director Sajet.


  1. On December 12th, 2016, Plaintiff did mail via certified USPS mail, 3 large packages containing 18 hard copies and 18 large 29” full color prints of the Trump Painting of the 44 page appeal package to each of the members of the Board Of Regents via the Chancellor Of the Board Of Regents Chief Justice Roberts. Plaintiff confirmed they were received by the Office of the Board Of Regents. “If there are multiple trustees, they carry a dual accountability for their own actions, inactions, and decisions as well as those of their co-trustees. At common law, when there were multiple trustees, each had an obligation to participate in trust administration unless otherwise specified. When one trustee breached his or her fiduciary duty, the other trustees were required to compel him or her to redress it.” Members included: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.; CC: Vice President Elect Mike Pence(Vice President Elect Pence was included since he was soon to become Vice President.); CC: Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; CC: Senator John Boozman; CC: Senator Patrick J. Leahy; CC: Senator David Perdue; CC: Representative Xavier Becerra; CC: Representative Tom Cole; CC: Representative Sam Johnson; CC: Barbara M. Barrett CC: Steve Case; CC: John Fahey; CC: Shirley Ann Jackson; CC: Robert P. Kogod CC: Risa J. Lavizzo-Mourey; CC: Michael M. Lynton; CC: John W. McCarter, Jr. CC: David M. Rubenstein.


  1. As of February 8th, 2017 plaintiff has not received acknowledgement from the Board Of Regents or their staff regarding the reception of the packages. The only acknowledgement was via Dr. Richard Kurin who spoke as the representative for the Board of Regents. In the scathing IRC Report regarding a multitude of Smithsonian Fiduciary failures and gubernatorial corruption, on page 19, article 7. we read how even the Board of Regents seem distant from the notion of even being Fiduciaries!


  1. Plaintiff and Beneficiary Raven had specifically appealed to the Trustees Of The Will Of Smithson, the Board Of Regents to avoid having to deal with another Trustee Delegate & ‘employee’. Beneficiaries are the essence of any Trust and when a Beneficiary makes a request to the Trustees they are bound by the Fiduciary Duties of Trustees, one of which is the Duty to Disclose. Now obviously in financial matters that would mean the Beneficiary is requesting some level of accounting. In this case the spirit of the duty would be to at least respond to the Beneficiary’s appeal in their capacity as Trustees.


  1. The opportunity for the Trustees to be free from liability as to the actions of the Trustee Delegates, Director Sajet according to ‘Respondeat Superior’ has now been squandered since the Board Of Regents have shown no regard to the appeal of the Beneficiary. Plaintiff’s appeal apparently was handed back from the Board Of Regents to a Trustee Delegate and ‘employee’, Dr. Richard Kurin. Now the Smithsonian Board Of Regents themselves will be liable since they violated the far-reaching laws regarding Trustee Fiduciary Duty especially the Duty of loyalty.


15 U.S. Code § 80a–35 – Breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1109 – Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1105 – Liability for breach of co-fiduciary



  1. In Dr. Kurin’s letter he now assumed the role of spokesperson for the Board Of Regents even though he was not mentioned in the appeal. In his letter Dr. Kurin again cited an arbitrary reason for the refusal. Dr. Kurin now appealed to a ‘recent tradition’ and ‘a long planned event’ as sufficient for the rejection. Dr. Kurin claimed the ‘long planned’ event, (remember this was only 4 weeks after Mr. Trump won the election, so ‘long planned’ is already suspect unless they had counted on a Clinton win?) which strangely had not come to light until after the media began to be aware of the rejection of the Trump Portrait application. If it was so ‘long planned’ and obviously such a special event how come it only came to light after the Trump Portrait application issue became public knowledge? And finally what would prevent the National Portrait Gallery showing a second Trump Portrait for the inauguration festivities since they showed 3 portraits for President Obama in 2013! (Plaintiff will subpoena documentation to verify that this is true.) 5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B)



  1. Claiming ‘recent tradition’ as a legitimate objection is a classical logical fallacy and violation of clearly established Smithsonian Standards and practices. An ‘appeal to tradition’ by Dr. Kurin again circumnavigated the standards established by the Congress appointed Co-Trustees, the Board Of Regents, the ratified ‘Programme Of Organization’ by Joseph Henry for portraiture acceptance. It claimed that this so called ‘recent tradition’ was binding and rigid forbidding the showing of any other work of art for such an historic event such as the inauguration of President Elect Donald J. Trump or even submitting the work for application for future showing. Dr. Kurin claimed that the Smithsonian’s so called ‘long planned’ event with a selection of art from its archives (1989 in this case) superseded the precedent established on January 17th, 2009 and in 2013 of showing of a ‘politically’ relevant and contemporary work of art related to the historic win of Barack Obama. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (2)(A)(B)(C) (D) (E)



  1. Dr. Kurin concluded his letter by saying he had spoken with Dir. Kim Sajet and ‘concurred’ with her decision. Again the Smithsonian officials now agree together in a ‘concurrence’ with the arbitrary, personal and unfounded objections of Dir. Kim Sajet. Nowhere is there any documentation to show what that decision consisted of, just a personal undocumented phone call!


  1. Clearly Dr. Richard Kurin has embraced the unlawful actions of Director Sajet and by ‘concurrence’ made himself accountable and jointly liable for her actions as if they were his own. Dr. Kurin has incriminated himself by willful agreement with the unlawful actions of Director Kim Sajet. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (2)(A)(B)(C) (D) (E)


  1. Dr. Kurin again further incriminated the procedural failures in this case by admitting to speaking with Director Sajet and ‘concurring’ with her decision whilst failing to say what that ‘decision’ consisted of for the record.  Dr. Kurin had the perfect opportunity to shed light on this situation and demonstrate through agency procedure where plaintiff’s art had missed the mark. But instead he incriminated himself, failed to declare at record the contents of his discussion with Director Sajet. 5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B)


  1. What Dr. Kurin does accomplish though is a vindication of plaintiff’s claims since he confirmed the conversation with plaintiff took place and its negative outcome, the rejection of the Trump Portrait for the inauguration of President Elect Trump. Dr. Kurin’s letter did not cite legitimate procedural reason and standards for the rejection of the Trump Painting and so in the absence of those, once can reasonable conclude that his ‘concurrence’ is with the unlawful actions and decision of Director Kim Sajet.


  1. In the IRC Report about the Smithsonian Institution about the systemic corruption at the Smithsonian, the culture of secrecy is one of the lawless cultures exposed at the Smithsonian Institution. This evasive behavior by Dr. Kurin as to the content of the conversation with Director Sajet to which he concurs, evinces the claim of secrecy as still alive today.


  1. Plaintiffs response to Dr. Kurin’s letter which requested information was never answered. Trust Delegate officers are under the same fiduciary burdens as trustees are themselves. “The duty to disclose material information is the core of a fiduciary’s responsibility, animating the common law of trusts long before the enactment of ERISA. At the request of a beneficiary, a fiduciary must convey complete and correct material information to the beneficiary.” ERISA Fiduciary Responsibility and Liability

15 U.S. Code § 80a–35 – Breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1109 – Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1105 – Liability for breach of co-fiduciary

5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B)

Wrongful Exclusion: NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE, ETC. V. CAMPBELL (1981) United States District Court, D. Columbia. 504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981) Gesell, District Judge


  1. It appears that in order to have artwork accepted ‘on loan’ at the Smithsonian Institution, you need to give a $716,000.00 dollar donation, be a member of a board and bear the name Cosby. For Mr. and Mrs. Bill Cosby could loan their Art collection and have it shown even when Mr. Cosby was and continues to be under federal investigation for his alleged sexual crimes and that was justified and accepted by Dr. Kurin!





  1. Smithsonian Spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas went on record regarding the rejection of the Trump Portrait saying:


“”There’s a process that we go through when we acquire a work of art, and it has to be decided by the museum’s curators and director, so it’s a process,”


Smithsonian Institution Chief Spokesperson Linda St. Thomas said;


We really don’t need to go through such a process since we already have our own.””




  1. In another media interview regarding the rejection of the Trump Portrait St. Thomas finally closed the door on the beneficiary slighting, congressional standards ignoring and fiduciary law breaking world of the Smithsonian by saying;


“You don’t apply to have portraits or artifacts taken into the Smithsonian,”


“St. Thomas added,(referring to the 2009 showing of the Obama ‘Hope’ Poster added) “We had the original art work for that [Obama] poster. We had no paintings of him or other works. So we used that for the inaugural space for about a one month display in the middle of January. In this case, in our collection, we had a photograph of president elect Trump and that’s the one we’re using.””


  1. Smithsonian spokesperson Linda St. Thomas told The Daily Caller Tuesday.

Read more:


  1. The truth was that the Smithsonian NPG was already showing a photo of Barack Obama in December 2008. “Barack Obama is the Man of the Moment at the Portrait Gallery” and that exhibition would last until September of 2009! So by the time the Inauguration in 2009 came there would be 2 Obama portraits on show at the same time and in 2013 there would be 3 relevant, fresh, new, current portraits on show at the NPG. But for the inauguration of President Elect Trump, the Smithsonian NPG rejects a relevant, new, fresh portrait of art for an old, dated, 1989 photo of Donald Trump tossing an apple in the air!

18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally


“You Don’t Apply….” St. Thomas


  1. Smithsonian Institution FAQ “I would like to donate an object to the Smithsonian Institution. What should I do?
  2. Smithsonian Institution FAQ “The Smithsonian acquires thousands of objects and specimens each year for its collection holdings through donation, bequest, purchase, exchange, and field collecting. The Institution accepts only items that truly fill a gap in the collections and then only after careful consideration by museum curators and directors. Because of this rigorous selection ‘process’, the Smithsonian adds to its collections only a tiny percentage of what it is offered.”


5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B)

5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (2)(A)(B)(C) (D) (E)


  1. Here it is clear of the contradictory and yet unlawful conduct ‘concurring’ nature of the behavior of the Smithsonian. St. Thomas alludes to a ‘process’, which in this case has been refused to plaintiff Raven because St. Thomas claims the museum “already (has)have our own.” Here the Will Of Smithson does not even exist, ‘ institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge..’ Where is the increase of knowledge when the NPG uses an old, dated 1989 photo of Donald Trump for the inauguration instead of the relevant to the campaign Trump Portrait?


  1. That ‘process’ one would assume would line up any work of art with the congressional standards of acceptance to see if it meets them whether by purchase, donation or loan the standards should remain constant. This was never done for plaintiff Raven. To arbitrarily deny even the ‘right’ of application based on arbitrary standards is a violation of agency procedure. 5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B) ; 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (2)(A)(B)(C) (D) (E)


Wrongful Exclusion: NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE, ETC. V. CAMPBELL (1981) United States District Court, D. Columbia. 504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981) Gesell, District Judge

20 U.S.C. § 50 : US Code – Section 50: Reception and arrangement of specimens and objects of art – See more at:


  1. If there was no ‘application process’ according to Spokeswoman St. Thomas, why did Director Closter forward plaintiff’s application to NPG Director Sajet? Why did Director Sajet call Mr. Raven to object to his application? And why did Dr. Kurin concur with Dir. Sajet’s rejection of even considering the application if there were not an application process?


  1. One would think that if all the art in the world related to Mr. Trump were what the Smithsonian had in its archives, one would agree to show the one and only old and dated photo! Also one would think that even if in the midst of this ‘long planned event’ to show an old photo, an institution dedicated to the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge’ would welcome a new, contemporary and politically relevant portrait depicting the soon to be inaugurated President of the United States, thus increasing knowledge as was done with the Obama ‘HOPE’ poster?




  1. The Chief Curator was named in the original application forwarded by Director Closter to the National Portrait Gallery. She has been completely silent in this whole affair. As can be seen in the comments of the other officers, the ‘decision’ and ‘process’ requires the input of ‘Curators and Directors.’ The Chief Curators silence speaks in its self. Rather than respond as her job description dictates she has taken the position of silence towards the plaintiff. Her specific role is Chief Curator of the National Portrait Gallery so her opinion must be part of this ‘process’.


  1. As a Trustee Delegate Officer, she is bound by duty to be involved in this ‘process’ since her name was invoked as one of the officials required to act in the decision making process in the original application. Both the extended fiduciary duties and the Federal and Smithsonian standards of Ethical Conduct for employees instruct employees to be active in their roles. Her inaction must be explained under discovery. The Agency Procedure Act is clear in its determination of how Federal Employees are to act concerning all agency procedures. Where is the opinion of the Chief Portrait Art Curator?


  1. As ‘Chief’ curator her opinion was vital to the decision and plaintiff does not know if she was involved in the process as mandated by Smithsonian Procedure. Maybe the Chief Curator disagreed with the Director and was shut out? Maybe the Chief curator was the only person to actually follow procedure and conclude differently than the agenda of the Director? This case must move to trial so discovery of these integral components be revealed.

15 U.S. Code § 80a–35 – Breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1109 – Liability for breach of fiduciary duty

29 U.S. Code § 1105 – Liability for breach of co-fiduciary

5 U.S. Code § 552 articles (a)(2)(A)(B)

5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (2)(A)(B)(C) (D) (E)





  1. As is clear with the legal doctrine of ‘Respondeat Superior’, the unlawful actions of delegates or employees can cause the ‘Superior’ to be liable of said actions. With regard to Trusts and Trustees they are bound by a duty not to delegate unless the Will of the testator and the performance of the Trustee’s duty cannot be accomplished.   Obviously with the massive expansion of the Smithsonian Institution this is obviously the case. Trustees are obligated continually to delegate duty through the Secretary. But when the delegated official fail and egregious conduct happens under their watch Trustees are liable.


  1. As mentioned above, since the Board Of Regents ignored plaintiff’s appeal, their opportunity for not being liable was lost. Being Co-Trustees and Co-Fiduciaries along with Congress the Trust ‘Legatee’, the Board Of Regents action or inaction naturally then makes Congress liable. Thus Congressman Roy Blunt as the Chair of the Committee On Rules and Administration, which has oversight over the Smithsonian, has been named in this suit.


  1. The egregious conduct by the Director Of the National Portrait Gallery has made the entire Smithsonian ‘Trust’ comprising of the Secretary of the Smithsonian, the U.S. Congress and the Board Of Regents liable for breaches of fiduciary duty!




  1. There is no doubt that the Smithsonian Institution’s founding vision and charter were both noble and generous. The spirit of the institution was built upon broad and curious ideas of great inquiry and learning in the pursuit of truth. As a result, because of the enormous bequest of Mr. James Smithson, funds were available since the beginning to give this vision its means to reach for the stars in any and every field of learning it should pursue. Also, that the Smithsonian Trust has done and accomplished incredible good for the benefit of millions of its beneficiaries for over a century!


  1. Sadly, history testifies to the nature and influence of corruption to which all institutions eventually succumb. Institutions under the leadership of its leaders, its officers and its trustees can begin to drift from its founding values and before long institute their own ideas and values and eventually the conduct of the Institution becomes completely removed from its founding ideals and values.



  1. Secretary Joseph Henry, the pioneering, brilliant and tireless servant of the newborn Smithsonian Institution bore the responsibility of defining the founding charter. He plotted the course of the Institution in the ‘Programme Of Organization’ once Congress had finally acted in 1846. Mr. Henry’s grasp of the nature of the Will of Smithson was pure and uncluttered by any agenda other than that of the testator. The Board Of Regents adopted the charter on December the 13th, 1847


  1. Secretary Henry wrote thus in articles 4-7 of the ‘Programme Of Organization’;


  1. “The objects of the institution are, 1st, to increase, and 2nd to diffuse knowledge among men.
  2. These two objects should not be confounded with one another. The first is to increase the existing stock by the addition of new truths; and the second, to disseminate knowledge, thus increased, among men.
  3. The will makes no restriction in favor of any particular kind of knowledge, hence all branches are entitled to a fair share of attention.
  4. Knowledge can be increased by different methods of facilitating and promoting the discovery of new truths; and can be most efficiently diffused among men by means of the press.


  1. Sadly as plaintiff’s case clearly exemplifies, we see a different spirit has over taken the Smithsonian Institution. The actions of its officers in plaintiff’s case evince a willful effort to exclude ‘new truths’ and forbid the ‘increase (of any) knowledge’ they despise. The egregious actions of Director Sajet et al, clearly demonstrate hostility to the Will Of James Smithson and to the founding charter, the ‘Programme Of Organization’!


  1. They have unapologetically shown their cooperative efforts, which may turn out to be conspiratorial under discovery, to deprive the Institution and thus its Beneficiaries, the American People of an ‘increase in the existing stock by the addition of new truths’ by refusing a work of art about the now President Of the United States because they are hostile personally, ideologically and politically against President Donald J. Trump.


  1. Director Sajet, who is meant to be an impartial Trustee Delegate Officer and an impartial Federal Employee, even uses her official Smithsonian National Portrait Director’s Twitter account to reveal her political bias. On the 20th of January 2017, rather than show the dated apple tossing Trump Portrait that she hung in the NPG in ‘celebration’ of the inauguration of President Elect Trump, she re-tweets a New York Time’s article about the darkness and fear in Washington related to the inauguration of President Trump! Again rather than be impartial and invite people to the NPG to ‘celebrate’ the inauguration of Donald J. Trump, she posts a photo of herself marching the next day at the ‘March for Women’ against President Trump! Without any positive tweets about the ‘Trump Photo’ she hung for the inauguration, it is obvious by exclusion what the NPG Director is saying and it corroborates all of the claims made by Artist, Trump Grassroots Activist and plaintiff Julian Marcus Raven.


  1. Plaintiff Raven will show by a preponderance of evidence that the Smithsonian Institution has a long track record of viewpoint discrimination and bias against ideas and beliefs which are determined to be forbidden and which mainly fall under the categories of Conservative, Republican and Christian ideas and viewpoints. That this systemic unlawful culture at the Smithsonian Institution is the context in which the actions of Defendants Director Sajet, Chief Curator Brandon Brame Fortune, Dr. Richard Kurin and Linda St. Thomas acted. Their actions are in harmony with this pervasive lawless culture at the Smithsonian Institution and thus their actions are demonstrated to be as claimed!




  1. WHEREFORE. Plaintiff Julian Marcus Raven demands relief, judgment, compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants as follows:


  1. That the Court exercise its discretionary powers over the Smithsonian Trust, its Trustees and their Delegate Officers and suspend the decision made by Director Sajet & Dr. Kurin regarding the rejection of the Trump Painting and order the Trump Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ be considered according to Smithsonian Trust standards and procedure.


  1. That the Court order an immediate ‘accounting’ or review of the actions, secret conversations and decisions of Director Sajet, Dr. Richard Kurin, Chief Curator Brandon Brame Fortune and Linda St. Thomas.


  1. The Court has discretionary power over the Smithsonian Trust also as a Federal ‘Establishment’ created by a Congressional Act. Thus the Smithsonian Institution is a Government Agency and according to the verdict in case law NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE, ETC. V. CAMPBELL (1981) United States District Court, D. Columbia. 504 F. Supp. 1365 (D.D.C. 1981) Gesell, District Judge, plaintiff demands comparable consideration due to the merits of plaintiff’s case.Defendant shall not reject any pending or future application of plaintiffs on this ground.” Judge Gesell, U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.


  1. That the Court exercise its discretionary powers over the Government Agency and order according to the ‘Agency Procedure Act’ all relevant Smithsonian Institution procedures related to this case be officially fulfilled and documented for public record.








  1. That Compensatory Damages be paid to the plaintiff for ‘View-Point Discrimination’ in the amount of $110,000.00 against defendants Sajet, Kurin, Fortune and St. Thomas in their individual capacities. In Case number BC 423687, the California Science Center settled suit with the American Freedom Alliance for $110,000.00 after breaching contract under pressure from the Smithsonian Institution to cancel the showing of ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’ a film from the perspective of Intelligent Design. This was a clear case of viewpoint discrimination!


  1. That $100,000.00 be paid to plaintiff for emotional distress as a result of the egregious conduct of the Smithsonian NPG Director Kim Sajet, which has deeply affected plaintiff Raven’s personal and family life. The initial shock as a result of the initial conversation lasted 2 days. Since December the 1st, 2016, this injustice has completely interfered in plaintiff’s thinking, routine, work as an artist, occupying and consuming most of his time with trial preparation as a pro se litigant. Distress, discouragement and bouts of depression have darkened plaintiff’s door as a result of the actions of Director Kim Sajet. Art production has been reduced to a snails pace. Plaintiff has suffered embarrassment caused by such unlawful conduct in that plaintiff was wrongfully excluded from an event in the historic fine arts that by all accounts plaintiff was qualified to participate in. Media interviews with the plaintiff surrounding the inauguration of President Trump relating to plaintiff’s involvement in the inaugural festivities were marred by the inclusion of this unfortunate case and the negative story created by this unlawful and wrongful exclusion.


  1. That Compensatory Damages in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS $1,000,000.00 be paid to plaintiff by all of the Defendants in their individual capacities, involved in this case for contributing by either action or inaction to the ‘wrongful exclusion’ of plaintiff from this historic, unprecedented and priceless moment in American history and art history. The record will forever show the absence at the NPG of the Trump Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ by not being included as originally requested as a celebratory tribute in the People’s National Portrait Gallery to then President Elect Donald J. Trump during this historic election and presidential inauguration. As demonstrated in this case the NPG made great effort to celebrate the inauguration of President Barack Obama with politically relevant art and more in 2009 and 2013, increasing and diffusing historic pictorial knowledge to the American people. But in 2017 the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery Director et al, deliberately chose to ignore the Will Of its founder Mr. James Smithson and the rights of both the 60,000,000(MILLION) plus Citizens and James Smithson Trust Beneficiaries who voted for Candidate Donald Trump to participation in the fine arts in an historical pictorial celebration of Donald J. Trump’s unprecedented and historic win. This moment was priceless and plaintiff was wrongfully excluded. Plaintiff is a professional artist and this accomplishment for his career would again have been priceless. $1,000,000.00 is small change when compared to the value of such an historic moment!


  1. Plaintiff requests the damages be trebled due to the egregious conduct of the Smithsonian Officials.



That the jury in this case award punitive damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities to plaintiff Raven in the amount that is appropriate in the eyes of the jury according to the reasonably determined numerical single digit multiplier for compensatory damages awarded. Or however the Court orders punitive damages to be calculated.


Punitive damages must be awarded to serve as an agent of reform at the Smithsonian Institution and as a deterrent to similar actions in the future to ensure that the Smithsonian Institution and its Trustees and Officers act in harmony with its own rules and laws and without question with the laws and Constitution of the United States of America.


Signed:           Julian Raven


February 10th, 2017

Address: 714 Baldwin St.

Elmira, New York, 14901



Mr. Julian Raven is representing himself, pro se.



Hunter v. United States, 30 U.S. 173, 188 (1831)

It is the peculiar province of equity, to compel the execution of trusts.”


Letter Of Appeal To The Board Of Regents Of The Smithsonian Institute, National Portrait Gallery Rejection Of Trump Portrait By Julian Raven

13 Dec

Julian Marcus Raven

2524 County Route 60

Elmira, New York 14901

December 7th 2016






Office of the Regents
Smithsonian Institution
1000 Jefferson Drive SW #113
Washington, D.C. 20560


To The Board Of Regents Of The Smithsonian Institution


CC: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.; CC: Vice President Elect Mike Pence;

CC: Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; CC: Senator John Boozman;

CC: Senator Patrick J. Leahy; CC: Senator David Perdue; CC: Representative Xavier Becerra; CC: Representative Tom Cole; CC: Representative Sam Johnson; CC: Barbara M. Barrett CC: Steve Case; CC: John Fahey; CC: Shirley Ann Jackson; CC: Robert P. Kogod CC: Risa J. Lavizzo-Mourey; CC: Michael M. Lynton; CC: John W. McCarter, Jr.

CC: David M. Rubenstein


Porter N. Wilkinson,

CC: Chief Of Staff To The Regents,

Rachel Parker,
CC: Deputy Chief of Staff to the Regents

CC: Smithsonian Legal Counsel Department

P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012

CC: Director Kim Sajet

Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery



Your Eminent Members Of The Board Of Regents Of The Smithsonian Institution,


My name is Julian Raven, artist and painter of the Trump Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’. It is with the most pressing urgency that I am writing you due to the fast approaching inauguration of President Elect Donald J. Trump on January 20th, 2017. The reason for the urgency is my intention of showing my painting as a historic tribute to Mr. Trump’s unprecedented election campaign at the National Portrait Gallery.


Due to the purpose of the National Portrait Gallery to be a pictorial record of individuals who have “…made significant contributions to the history, development, and culture of the people of the United States, and of the artists who created such portraiture and statuary.” [i] It is without question that an artistic, pictorial record must be made at the National Portrait Gallery that embodies, captures and expresses this most remarkable presidential election campaign because of its unquestionable contribution to our remarkable American history!


There will be many portraits painted of President Elect Trump, there are many portraits of Mr. Donald Trump as a private citizen from before the campaign, but there is only one positive pro-Trump portrait/painting of note and recognition. The painting was created by a private citizen of these United States, back in the summer/fall of 2015. It embodies the candidate, vision, passions, desires, hopes, symbols, patriotism, faith and will of the American people by graphically and prophetically depicting Mr. Donald J. Trump as the man who would become the 45th President of the United States in a dramatic composition whose narrative embodies our most cherished and sacred aspirations as Americans.

This historic creative journey began back on July the 9th 2015, when most people considered Mr. Trump’s candidacy to be a joke! The details of the journey are attached as part of the application that I sent to the Director of The National Portrait Gallery, Kim Sajet. Due to the unfortunate response to my application from Director Sajet I have written this appeal at her prompting, since Director Sajet’s final words to me were, ‘Your application will go no further, I am the director and you can appeal it all you want.’


This very surprising and disturbing personal phone call from Director Sajet took place on December the 1st, 2016 at 11:34 A.M. and it lasted for 11 minutes.[ii] Without any cordial, polite, official, formal, educated, substantive or even procedurally accurate written decision or response from the Director of the National Portrait Gallery to my 20 plus page application that was forwarded to her by the Director Of The Affiliations Department Harold Closter, my application was rejected!   The application included official letters of recommendation from New York elected representatives of over 200,000 citizens; Congressman Tom Reed, Senator Tom O’Mara, GOP chairs, Elmira Mayor Mandell, Councilwoman Moss and others including radio host Frank Acomb and Art Collectors Davis/Gates. Director Sajet embarked on an undocumented[iii], unofficial, biased and personally opinionated rejection of my painting.


One would think that the very standards for acceptance of portraits established by Congress in 1963 would be at the forefront of Director Sajet’s objections? It would also seem appropriate that a work of art such as mine be examined in person due to its scale. The director’s first objection was about the painting’s size! My protestations at the arbitrariness of her objection produced an eventual backtracking and apology from the director! Nowhere in the established standards by Congress for acceptance for a painting was scale ever mentioned! But due to the personally biased opinion that was rendered by Director Sajet, scale was her first mistake!


The size, nearly 7×15 foot painting (7” x 8’ x 16’ and nearly 300lbs in weight in its beautiful decorative red, white and blue frame) is part of the Trump narrative in the portrait, which obviously Director Sajet cared little for! As an artist who paints huge paintings in my 6000 square foot studio in upstate New York and who has always enjoyed Donald Trump’s propensity for doing things ‘YUGE!’, our personalities coincided! ‘YUGE’ was to become part of the historic campaign and part of many of Mr. Trump’s comments. He became the master of ‘YUGE’, his lifestyle, his architectural exploits, his plane and ultimately his campaign can be described as ‘YUGE!’. Thus a portrait/painting that appropriately expresses Mr. Trump’s personality would by nature be ‘YUGE’!


Since the experience of seeing the huge (105 sq. ft. surface area.) painting in person cannot in any way be appreciated through highly reduced and compressed digital images of only a few square inches on an iPhone or comparatively small computer screens, an informed, honest and objective decision should be made after seeing the painting in person, one would think? The many, many, incredible personal responses to the painting testify to this reality.   As the artist, I have had the privilege to watch this happen across the country from NY to LA and throughout the 2015-2016 election campaign. I have been moved by the way in which the painting produced so many powerful and positive emotional responses. Even by those who did not like Mr. Trump, obviously not all of them, but I received so many positive compliments even from Bernie Sander’s supporters, Black Lives Matter protesters, democrats and independents. To note the respect the painting has commanded I share this other story. Over the past 7 months a 12×25 foot vinyl copy of the painting has hung on the front of my art studio, which is located in a low income, highly democratic area. And although the banner and I were initially threatened, 7 months later the banner remains intact!


Art has the power to transcend the typical political discourse, producing positive dialogue and understanding. The positive, visionary hope filled image of the portrait inspires people, commands respect and educates since it is layered with symbolic imagery that tell our American story! Our Nation is in need of healing and restoration. My painting is a tool that has accomplished that, in the many conversations I have had and to the degree that it has been seen across this country. The painting’s destiny to continue this work now rests in your hands.


With this appeal, I am requesting that the Board Of Regents issue an immediate ‘stay of judgment’ in the hasty and biased rejection of my application by Director Sajet. I hereby petition that your Eminencies give an honest and thoughtful consideration to the remarkable and historic story that accompanies the painting. That non-biased and artistic opinions be given to the dramatic nature of the manner of inspiration and spiritual depth through which I was inspired to paint the painting. Also the nearly 600 hours of at times agonizing artistic struggle in the execution of the painting be included in the consideration. Consideration must be given to the resulting effect and the life transforming power upon my personal life as an artist, patriot, political activist and newborn citizen of my new home, the United States of America. I request that consideration be given to the totally unique nature of the painting, since it is not a stylistic reproduction of any other portrait or artistic period. It is unique, and I can testify to that, having been to all of the major museums in England, France, Holland, Spain and New York and personally seen a great number of the worlds most acclaimed artworks, as well as having studied the history of art. I request that thoughtful and respectful consideration be given to the letters of support by elected representatives and others who have personally witnessed this story in one degree or another. Also, that the historic journey and the way the image of the painting was woven into the fabric of this historic presidential campaign be weighed in this process.[iv]


Finally, that based upon the standards for acceptance for portraits to be accepted into the National Portrait Gallery and because the Congress of The United States has decreed; “…the standards for accepting portraits varied considerably from other galleries. Even today, in every instance, the historical significance of the subject is judged before the artistic merit of the portrait, or the prominence of the artist.”[v], that this standard be applied to my painting.


Since personal bias can affect one’s judgment, if the predetermined Congressional standards are ignored in these matters of historic artistic determination, we must remember that this process was established for the sole purpose of securing a historical and pictorial archive of our American story for this or any other particular time in our history. And if yourselves or any other individual can find a portrait that better represents, captures and embodies the dramatic election campaign of now President Elect Donald J. Trump then by all means I will accept the determination of the Board Of Regents in that selection. Most Eminent members of the Board Of Regents, you have been entrusted as civil servants with a grave, honorable and patriotic duty to most accurately and truthfully tell our story to our children and to our children’s children!


Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. And please consider this appeal also as an open invitation to my art studio in Elmira, New York to personally experience the Trump Portrait and Painting ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ to assist in making your final decision


Please be considerate of the fact that January 20th, 2017 is fast approaching and it would be most fitting to pictorially and artistically celebrate and coincide with this historic inauguration of the 45th president Of The United States, President Elect Donald J. Trump, by having my portrait on display in the National Portrait Gallery. The National Portrait Gallery established precedent for this type of tribute and event on January the 17th, 2009 when the grassroots produced Obama ‘Hope’ poster by Yosi Sergant and artist Shepherd Fairey was displayed just in time for then President Elect Barack Obama’s historic election campaign!



Yours sincerely,


Julian Raven





[iii] Personally I would tend to believe that the phone call record exists somewhere in the NSA or some other data and intelligence recording facility!
























Julian Raven, Artist

714 Baldwin St.

Elmira, NY 14901


December 6th, 2016





“It’s too BIG!” was the director’s first objection! The director followed with another salvo, ‘The Smithsonian requires ALL portraits be painted from life” to the total shock of Julian Raven, artist and painter of the historic Trump Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’. Raven hit back, “You showed the Obama ‘Hope’ poster which was not created from a live sitting with Barack Obama!” To which Director Sajet seemed to stamp her foot and insist that it had been created from life, she in fact was now lying! (Later Raven was to discover Director Sajet had misquoted the legal requirement for portrait acceptance by deleting the final part of the statute, “Works must be the best likeness possible; original portraits from life, if possible”.) One would expect the director to actually know the ‘questionable’ story behind the Obama poster by Shepherd Fairey. She insisted, until Raven educated her on the facts, those being how former White House Liaison for the Arts, Yosi Sergant, the leftist political activist and ‘brain-child’ behind the poster, had commissioned Fairey to create the poster and how it was a digitized image of a photo taken by an AP photographer. Raven had participated in an art show in LA curated by Sergant in which he had shown his Trump portrait alongside one of the 3 copies of the screen printed version of the ‘Hope’ poster, one of which was shown in the National Portrait Gallery.


By this time Raven was driving the conversation back to the point about her objection to the scale of the painting as being ridiculous, at which Director Sajet began to backtrack and apologize for her nonsensical objection about the scale, to the amazement of the artist! (Remember, the director of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery had called the artist personally to let him know of her objections, and within 5 minutes was apologizing!) She proceeded to rattle off more personal objections to the Trump portrait by now turning to its content.


“It’s too pro Trump!” At this point the artist’s amazement was surreal! “Too pro Trump?”, he shot back, “and the Obama poster was not Pro-Obama?” “Its too political”, she said, alluding to the imagery in the painting, the American flag, the Bald Eagle and the depiction of The USA. Those are patriotic symbols. Now the director was objecting to patriotism! This portrait of President Elect Donald J. Trump, was painted in the summer of 2015. It prophetically, symbolically and patriotically depicted Trump as America’s future President. Now it was too Patriotic for the NATIONAL Portrait Gallery! Amazingly, according to The Smithsonian, Director Kim Sajet is not even an American Citizen!


Feeling ‘dazed and confused’ the artist responded with another rebuttal, “So the Obama ‘Hope’ poster was neither political nor patriotic?” She replied, “It needs to be more neutral!” . Yet, she kept mentioning the ‘George Washington’ portrait in the Smithsonian, that also contradicted her stance! With that, the Director ended her barrage of personal objections and dislikes of the painting. Her final comment, “It’s no good, it’s a bad painting of Trump!”. Director Sajet then told the artist that she was the director, that his application submitted in writing would go no further, get no official written response and that he could appeal her decision all he wanted! If there ever was a portrait of hubris, this was it!


Director Sajet, in hastily rejecting and condemning this historic work of art, has violated the very conditions for acceptance to the National Portrait Gallery established by Congress. The most important point Congress made was this: “Even today, in every instance, the historical significance of the subject is judged before the artistic merit of the portrait, or the prominence of the artist.”

Again, demonstrating her personal bias and ignorance of the very basis for accepting a portrait, Director Kim Sajet did not even bother to consider the historical significance of the Trump Portrait. In addition, this was the only recognized pro-Trump portrait to have been part of President Elect Donald J. Trump’s historic Presidential campaign!


A copy of Raven’s portrait has been hanging in Trump Tower since November 2015. It has been seen across the country in Julian Raven’s grassroots campaign, in which Eric Trump also participated. It was part of the ‘Art Of Politics’ show in LA along with the nation’s top political art and artists. An image of the painting was also part of Trump Exec. Lynne Patton’s viral video ‘The Trump Family I know’, which generated millions of views and shares. This video was shown at the RNC in Cleveland, establishing the Trump Portrait to be the only work of art recognized at the Convention. It was also on display at the New York Delegation headquarters in Cleveland and in the Public Square amidst hordes of protesters. The painting was also featured in the Huffington Post’s, ‘If This Art Could Vote,’ election art gallery. It also served as the backdrop to numerous, videos, rallies, websites, Facebook pages etc. It was featured in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and in media across the globe. The application to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery is supported by GOP chairpersons, radio host Frank Acomb, art collectors, and elected representatives, such as Congressman Tom Reed, Senator Tom O’Mara and Elmira Mayor Dan Mandell, all who represent over 200,000 upstate New York citizens.


Do you recall Director Sayet’s rejection of a 15,000 person petition to remove the objectionable bust of Margaret Sanger by black pastors, led by Bishop E.W. Jackson, Senators Cruz and Gomer amongst many other elected representatives back in August of 2015? What about the recent snubbing of Chief Justice Clarence Thomas by the Smithsonian African American Museum? Now, with this bizarre, biased and incompetent behavior by Director Kim Sayet regarding the Trump Portrait, the conditions for a perfect storm have been created.


The ‘swamp’ of blatant liberal bias at the Smithsonian must be drained!


Artist Julian Raven became an American Citizen on September 17th 2015. He is a grassroots political Trump campaigner. He was elected within his first year of citizenship to become a New York Alternate Delegate to represent New York at the Cleveland RNC. He is a public speaker, entrepreneur and minister. He is married to Gloria Raven. They have three beautiful children and they live in Elmira, New York.


For the full story go to


Contact: 607-215-8711













Julian Raven, Artist                                                                                

714 Baldwin St., Elmira, New York, 14901

November 15th, 2016




Executive Director, Kim Sajet

The Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery

CC: Chief Curator, Brandon Brame Fortune

Curatorial Department
8th St NW & F St NW,

Washington, DC 20001


CC: Kristin A. Swain, Executive Director Of The Rockwell Museum Of Art

CC: Brian Lee Whisenhunt, Incoming Executive Director OF The Rockwell Museum Of Art

CC: Patty Campbell, Smithsonian Liaison at the Rockwell Museum Of Art

111 Cedar St, Corning, NY 14830


Application To Show The Trump Portrait/Painting, ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ By Artist Julian Raven at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery For The Inauguration of President Elect Donald J. Trump on January 20th, 2017.









The Presidential Portrait/Painting has an incredible backstory of inspiration and creation, complex narrative told through layered symbolism and a historic grassroots campaign journey in support of President Elect Donald J. Trump. The painting is predictive in that it depicted Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America, it was created in the summer of 2015.



My name is Julian Raven;, I am a professional artist residing in Elmira, New York. With the historic election of Mr. Donald J. Trump, soon to be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States of America, it is only fitting that at his inauguration, American art history and the art world be included.


As the artist who painted the prophetic, symbolic, patriotic and historic Trump portrait/painting ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ I respectfully submit my request, to have my work on show at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery for the presidential inauguration on January the 20th, 2017.


The unique and compelling story of the massive, nearly 8×16 foot work of art in its final finished framed dimensions, must be told since it is the only painting to have been created at the beginning of the campaign back in the summer of 2015 by the grassroots and to have predicted the Trump Presidency and then to have been part of a historic grassroots political campaign. As an artist, I was inspired to create this portrait never having met Donald Trump. Alone and in my 6000 sq. ft. art studio in Elmira, New York, I spent nearly 600 hours wrestling with this monumental task.



Never have I had such a powerful experience of inspiration and the subsequent burning and consuming desire to embark on such a project. It is the thing of artist’s dreams to have the level of spiritual intensity rest upon me as it did.


“The mission of the National Portrait Gallery is to tell the story of America by portraying the people who shape the nation’s history, development and culture.” In harmony with this mission statement, there is no other individual on earth right now with the prominence, fame and historic impact like President Elect Trump and there is no other painting on earth that corresponds with this most significant time in human history!


In 2009, the National Portrait Gallery established an important presidential campaign art precedent. With the showing of the Obama graphic ‘Hope And Change’ commissioned by Yosi Sergant and created by artist Shepherd Fairey on January the 17th, 2009, the relevant and pertinent historic work of art celebrated in parallel the inauguration of President Elect Barack Obama on January the 20th, 2009.


Now on the heels of another unusual and totally unique Presidential election result, President Elect Donald J. Trump’s totally unprecedented election has its own historic work of art to celebrate his inauguration.




‘The Art Of Politics’ Show in LA, ‘Politicon 2016’


The Trump Painting & Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ story written on August 26th, 2016


“It began on July 9th, 2015.  As I was looking intently at a photo of Donald Trump and listening to him speak, I hear the words ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ ticker tape through my mind as the image of a Bald Eagle swooped down to snatch a falling American flag and flag pole. I began to find images of eagles online snatching fish out of the water to see if I could find the right posture and attitude I could see in the vision. At the time I was busy working on other projects in my studio. I went about my way, but the image did not leave my mind, it was seared onto the screen of my mind.  It began to grow within, increasing in pressure as time passed, ‘paint the Trump painting, Trump painting, Trump painting…’ it was as if the image was saying to me, ‘get on with it’….the pressure continued to increase!
On August 20th, I finally sat down at my computer to work on the image of the Trump Painting.  I worked on creating an eagle from the images I found in July that was both snatching and screaming.  My 13 year old daughter Victoria, came into my office and asked me what I was doing working on an eagle, since I had told no one what I was thinking. Also it was a departure from my recent abstract expressionist work! Victoria thought I was going to build a sculpture of the eagle, since at that time, I was working in steel.  I told Victoria that I was working on a painting in my mind, without telling any details.  Victoria left the room and then did an about face and said out of the blue, ‘Dad, why don’t you paint a painting of the Eagle and give it to Donald Trump so WHEN he becomes President he can hang it in the White House.’  I was stunned by the utterance, out of the mouth of babes the spirit now spoke to me. I sat there staring at her innocent and beautiful face, I was amazed, speechless and in awe!  She shrugged her shoulders and left the room!  Victoria had no idea I was planning to paint a painting about Donald Trump, which included a Bald Eagle; somehow she connected the dots and spoke!
The very next morning, August the 21st, I went to CNN online to see what Mr. Trump was saying that day.  There was a video segment about a Time Magazine photo shoot at Trump Tower.  I pressed play, as it was about a ‘visitor’ Trump had that morning at Trump Tower.
Who was this visitor I wondered? Suddenly, as the video rolled, there on the screen, in front of me was a photo of Donald Trump standing in his office, that very morning with a Bald Eagle perched on his arm! I was stunned!  I stared at the screen in disbelief.  The lighting in the photo was very strong and it looked superimposed.  I actually thought it was a hoax, a fake, a Photoshop of Donald Trump with a bald eagle.  That somehow, someone knew what I was thinking about The Trump Painting and was fooling with me….I continued to stare at the screen in disbelief!  I felt like a car had hit me, the jolt was so powerful, it really messed with my perception; I could not believe my eyes! WOW! WOW! WOW! I was dumbfounded by this staggering series of events!
Think about it for a moment, for nearly six weeks I had been thinking daily about an image of Donald Trump’s face staring out at me, a Bald Eagle rescuing symbolically the falling American flag, as I daily tried to compose the Trump Painting on the screen of my mind.  This could have just been a good idea I had, painting a painting of Trump could be a smart move as an artist, it could be a ‘big deal’ for my career…But I was very busy working on other projects, steel sculpture in particular which was very exciting, more so than what was going on inside my head. But the image of the Trump Painting replayed itself daily in my mind.
The internal pressure had eventually increased to the point where I had to sit down and start actually working on the elements in the Trump painting in the physical sense.  So finally I am at my computer working on the Eagle, creating a snatching & screaming Eagle.  This is the first day that I sat down to work on developing image, the only day since July 9th.  Then out of nowhere my daughter Victoria engages me about the Eagle and then says what she said out of left field that very night. I knew then I had to paint the painting.  And then, the very next morning, I see the photo of Donald Trump in his office with the Bald Eagle perched on his arm, then the video of the Bald Eagle sitting on his desk. Amazing! I nearly fell off my chair!


There were 21 candidates running at that time on both sides, Republican and Democrat.  Why was it that only Trump decided to take a picture with a Bald Eagle that morning?  None of the other candidates took pictures with a Bald Eagle, as if this was some ritual that presidential candidates do when running for office.  Even for Trump it was unusual.  How many photos exist of Trump with an Eagle perched on his arm? Just one! If Trump was a collector of Eagles it would not be that odd, but on that day, August 21st, 2015 Donald Trump alone does a photo shoot with the Bald Eagle.
People I think interpret unusual series of events as we seek to discover God’s guidance, in our efforts into tap into and understand the plan for our lives and for our tomorrows, at least that is what I do. There are ideas, visions, plans etc. we can have within ourselves, that when they are confirmed on different levels from the outside without anyone knowing what is going on inside, it indicates to me an intervention from a Source greater than self since it is now out of our control.  Could this all have been coincidence or is the Hand of Destiny really in control, was this a spiritual revelation indicating Trump would become the 45th President of the United States?  Remember this was last year, 2015 when Trump was up against 16 other republican candidates!
What does this all mean?  What was Trump trying to say? Does this series of ‘events’ tell a story that is speaking of future events?  Remember at that time Donald Trump was not being taken seriously.  At that time and until this day Trump’s candidacy has been mocked, ridiculed and ‘expertly’ explained as continually imploding by all manner of political professionals, commentators, experts in the media, talking heads on TV and radio pundits!
Trump has defied political gravity; Trump won the Republican nomination and defeated 16 other professional and formidable political opponents and this he did as an outsider, businessman and political novice never having been elected!  Trump’s candidacy has been nothing but meteoric, historic and prophetic.  This story of the inspiration and creation of the Trump painting ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ speaks to that very fact and is a physical ‘sign’ that captures this historic presidential race like nothing else by painting a picture of the future.
On this date August the 26th, 2016 the Trump painting which was completed last year in September 2015 so far has painted a remarkable picture of what we are seeing taking place right now.  The contents of the painting, the symbols contained all point to Donald Trump as the next President of the United States of America! We will know on November the 8th, 2016.
Please enjoy the rest of the story about the creation of the Trump Painting and how the inspiration of this painting opened up a door to a grassroots political campaign that has taken the artist, New Born citizen and Alternate New York Delegate Julian Raven from coast to coast.”


Painting The Portrait


Abstract expressionism has been one of my techniques in my personal search for the creative language that best expresses and captures the intensity and passion of my heart. The excitement, energy and joy the ‘Drip & Splash’ technique creates within me is exhilarating. But it is limited in its ability to convey detailed information.


When considering how I was going to paint the Trump Portrait I considered my advanced ‘Drip & Splash’ technique. I had painted back in 2014 a 7-foot portrait of Alan Henning, the British cab driver murdered by ISIS in Syria, called ‘The Power Of Kindness’. This laid the groundwork for the Trump Portrait and I was close to painting the massive painting with drips of paint, but the details in my mind seemed to require grater clarity. The Henning portrait was extremely challenging, and very hard to control. So I rightly decided to pick up my brushes again and discover the challenges of using tiny brushes when one is used to throwing gallons of paint around! Ha-ha, it was like asking someone to paddle their canoe in a pond after white water rapids were their ‘thing’!


I did not plan the painting other than I knew that the head would be full size, for me that was nearly 7 feet tall. I did not want the body since it was the face I saw in the photo, it was the expression of determination, and the stare of Trump saying I am going to get it done! I am tough, determined and ready to rescue America! The eagle had to be at least 8 feet; it ended up being 9 feet long approximately.


It was a great challenge for me since I did not know exactly what I was going to paint, I trusted the spirit of inspiration to guide me and it did. I literally followed the impulses in my heart. I had waited to so long to start the painting that when that series of events came, I hade only begun to work on the eagle, creating a snatching screaming bird, there was nothing else. So the morning of the CNN video, I left my home and built the stretcher in my studio and began painting and did not stop until it was done. I could not stop myself. I worked the painting out on the canvas. That is probably why it took me so long because I redid portions of it over and over and over and over again! If x-rayed, the painting would look like a sketchbook!


For nearly 6 weeks I was a different man. I could not interact with my family normally nor attend to household responsibilities.   Thank God I have a patient and wonderful wife and family! I hardly slept, which caused me to drink unusual amounts of coffee to keep me awake. It was a totally consuming work. I did not see friends, or tell friends what I was doing, not even my mother knew what I was doing! Night and day I worked. It was brutally hot some days. Then, as the painting’s end was in sight, it was autumn and quite chilly. It was an experience that has changed my life forever!



I tried to create a beautiful composition of fantastic lines.   Carefully, I created interesting negative spaces and I was very careful not to pack the composition and lose its feeling of space. I wanted the painting’s style to be interesting to children; one that everyone could enjoy – the artistically informed as well as the average person. This was one of the reasons I did not use the drip technique. My children and my wife were the only people who knew what I was doing for the two months that I ‘fell off the radar’. They were both my sounding board and my encouragement. The painting had to be a bold reflection of Trump in its scale, intensity, drama, energy and bold coloring. It developed into this cosmic global vision as seen from above. Donald Trump’s impact globally already speaks to the earth being used symbolically.


It is dreamlike, even surreal as it speaks of the dream/vision of the fall and rescue of America under President Trump, but it also is a dream since it is set at the waking hour, the time of dreams, as the sun rises in the east. Even though painting is layered in Theistic symbolism, since I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and since I was inspired, I made sure it did not read as a religious painting. That type of imagery can distract and ‘pigeon hole’ the work into a sub category that then limits the amount of people who will enjoy it.



Most of the elements in the painting are telling a story. Even Trump’s hair is a meteoric symbol that actually is not sitting on his head. This speaks to the ‘meteoric’ rise of Trump and his hair being such a feature of his personality. I even deliberately made the roots visible, since at the time there was so much debate as to whether his hair was real; the painting shows it being real! The long stretched flag developed from a simple falling flag to a fluttering, reversed, faded, frayed, torn flag (symbols in the tears.) on the right to a restored and new flag on the left under the wings of the Eagle. The flag is a time continuum or timeline. From its founding where the flag attached to the flag pole ropes that are cut off from the flag pole, the ropes which are symbols to the new stripes, stars and ink being pulled down from above and out and through Trump. The pensive, intense and determined look on Trumps face, and yet the Bald Eagle is screaming, sounding the alarm as if that is the cry of the eagle, the sprit of the land coming through Donald Trump. ‘Make America Great Again’ is a tough phrase to visualize in a simple image. I have made the falling fading flag that is rescued speak to that saying. It is the image of making America Great Again as the flag is restored. Mysteriously, the portrait with all of its intensity, smiles, revealing the ‘big hearted’ man behind the steely eyed stare. This is seen in the original more than in the reproductions.


There is much more to the story and the interpretation of the symbolism, which I hope to share with you if you decide to honor my request to show the painting for the inauguration.


The painting is in acrylics on stretched canvas. It is beautifully framed in a red, white and blue ornate decorative frame. The final dimensions are nearly 8×16 feet. It weighs about 250 lbs. It is ready to hang with French cleats and it has its own custom crate.


Grassroots Campaign


The reactions of people who have seen the actual painting have been a pleasure to watch and hear as an artist. Many people have seen the image of the painting and speak positively of it. But it is the experience of the scale of the portrait that evokes massive emotional responses. Some people virtually yell out loud, using expletives when they see it! The ‘OOs’ and ‘Ahhs’ are great when the painting is unveiled. The two most dramatic reactions were as follows. One man paced up and down in front of the painting rubbing his arms, as he exclaimed out loud how he had goose bumps all over his body. One woman, upon seeing the painting stood there silently. It was an awkward silence and a first since most people react out loud. This one woman stood there, stared silently and left. The artist thought she didn’t like the painting. Later she emailed the artist to apologize and explain how the painting left her speechless. She could not speak….That was a powerful reaction!



From the snowy wilderness of the Iowa Caucuses to the pinnacle of political art shows in LA at Politicon 2016, The Trump Painting has been seen and enjoyed by thousands of people.  The Trump Painting ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ was seen at the ‘Art Of Politics’ Art Show along with the ‘Hope And Change’ painting, by artist Shepherd Fairey to provocative conservative street artist SABO. Here is the invitation from Yosi Sergant, inspiration and publicist of the Obama painting ‘Hope And Change’ by Shepherd Fairey.


“Dear Julian, My name is Yosi Sergant. I am the former White House Arts Liaison and Dir. of Communications at the National Endowment for the Arts. I would love to invite you to participate in a group show I am producing at this years Politicon taking place in Pasadena, CA from June 24-26th ( We expect about 5,000 attendees and the speakers/panelists include the likes of Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter, Glen Beck, James Carville, David Axelrod and the cast of the Daily Show… and many more. The show includes artists such as Shepard Fairey, Robbie Conal, Michael D’Antuono, T-Rock Moore, SABO, The Art Wing Conspiracy, Mear One, Illma Gore and a few others. It will be fantastic. We’d love to include Unafraid and Unashamed in the show. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards, Yosi”


The Trump Painting even traveled to Trump Tower in New York City where a copy proudly hangs in the Trump Campaign Headquarters since November 1st, 2015.
Having been elected as an Alternate Delegate from New York, as a newborn American citizen, Julian Raven attended the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, 2016.  As part of the New York delegation a copy of the Trump Painting was on display at the Cleveland Renaissance Hotel. It served as the backdrop for countless photos with many of the distinguished guests at the New York Delegation. Present at the New York delegation were former Speaker New Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Congressman Collins, Congressman Reed, GOP Chairman Ed Cox, Chemung County Chair Rodney Strange, Yates County Chairwoman Sandy King, Schuyler County Chair Lester Cady and many more. Julian Raven also boldly and proudly displayed a copy of The Trump Painting in the Public Square in the center of the anti Trump protests at the convention. The painting powerfully transcended the heated opposition to Trump, creating positive dialogue with Bernie Sander’s supporters and Black Lives Matter protesters who showed great respect for the painting even though they opposed Trump. It was common to hear, “I hate Trump, but I love the painting…” This was mission accomplished for the arts, as the painting was a tool for generating positive interaction. Even at the artist’s studio where at 25 foot vinyl version of the painting hangs it has been a tool for positive conversation. From a multitude of initial threats, the hostility was diffused and minds were changed concerning Trump. 6 months later the banner still hangs in a Democrat neighborhood proving the power of art to be an instrument of creative dialogue.


Yosi Sergant, inspiration, patron and publicist of the Shepherd Fairey presidential poster even said about the Trump Painting And Portrait, that is was ‘visionary, positive and a hope filled work of art, even though being a self proclaimed ‘hard core leftist’ and not a fan of Donald Trump.


The image of the Trump painting was also featured in the viral video (5 million Views) ‘The Trump Family I know’ produced by Trump Executive, Lynne Patton. It was also shown on screen during the Cleveland RNC convention. Julian Raven received acknowledgement and praise from politicians, the media and friends who saw the image at the RNC or on their television screens across the county, for that great achievement! The image of the Trump portrait/painting was to become the only work of art included in the RNC convention. By this inclusion at the RNC, the image of the painting became a part of American political history, another step in this remarkable ‘art history’ story.


Please see video: (Also see the massive media coverage at


Following the RNC in Cleveland, the Trump painting has been a continual fixture in Grassroots rallies in Elmira, New York. It also was part of RNC annual dinners, with high-ranking New York Republican sitting politicians being present; New York Senator Tom O’Mara, Chemung County Chairman Rodney Strange, Elmira Mayor Daniel Mandell, , Schuyler County Chairman Lester Cady, Yates County Chairwoman Sandy King, Assemblyman Friend, Assemblyman Palmesano and many other distinguished members of the Republican Party. Julian Raven would speak and explain some of the symbolism in the painting and receive standing ovations as a result!






Sincerely appreciative of your time,

Julian Raven




MEDIA: Some of the many stories. Please visit the Trump Painting website to see all of the images and media stories.


Powerful Signs in the making of the ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’

The Making of The Trump Painting/Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’

November 1st, 2015 the beginning of the fine art grassroots campaign for Donald trump by Artist Julian Raven

Unwavering support, Mayor Mandell Recommendation

Beyond Rage And Anger To America, Vision Of Hope

Washington Free Beacon- Culture- Loyal Supporters.

New York Times: Art Section:

The only Pro-Trump painting to be included in the anti-Trump Huffington Post’s Art gallery ‘If This Art Could Vote’:


Please see more at:





The Trump Painting/Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’ by Julian Raven



















Email To Director Of Affiliates program Harold Closter.



——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Formal Complaint & REJECTED Smithsonian Application through SI
Affiliate, The Rockwell Museum, Trump Painting, Senator O’Mara,
Congressman Reed & Other Letters of Recommendation
From: <>
Date: Wed, November 30, 2016 11:20 am


Dear Mr. Closter, Director Of The Smithsonian Affiliations Department,


My name is Julian Raven, artist and painter of the Trump Portrait and Painting ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’.  I had recently applied to the National Portrait Gallery through the Smithsonian Affiliate, the Rockwell Museum in Corning, New York.  After a chilly reception and an inference that ‘because the painting is political’ by Patty Campbell, the Smithsonian liaison at the Rockwell, they would not be be able to help since they were a ‘non profit’.  I immediately reminded Ms. Campbell that they had recently had Kal Penn speak at the Rockwell Museum. Mr. Penn was an Obama surrogate, a former White House Director Of Public Engagement, a speaker at the DNC and a Bernie Sanders supporter in the past election. He was invited to speak at the Rockwell Museum on October the 28th, 2016 just a week before the November Election!  Mr. Penn spoke on ‘art and politics!’ That excuse obviously did not fly!


Director Swain later informed me by email that they would not be able to assist me in submitting my application because they do not have the resources! Please read the email below.


“Thank you for your interest in The Rockwell Museum.  While your involvement with the arts is appreciated, The Rockwell simply does not have the resources to assist you with your project.


Your materials will be available for pick-up at the Museum reception desk.  Best of luck with your endeavors,” Kristin Swain.


I was simply asking for my application to be submitted, which is basically forwarding an email, like this one, clicking the send button!  I had offered the Rockwell different levels of involvement if they wished(Please read email below) at such a historically significant time, which they could chose to do or not, or just simply forward the application to the right person and department.


Director Swain’s claim to resource poverty as their excuse to not assist me is outrageous!  I spoke will Kal Penn’s talent agency today and they informed me that it would cost at least $60,000.00 to have Mr. Penn come and speak at an event in our area!  The Rockwell Museum has an ‘Executive Liaison’ position as well and Director Swain pleads poverty of resources!


According to the Rockwell website, the “‘Smithsonian Affiliations, Established in 1996, is designed to facilitate a two way relationship among Smithsonian Affiliates and the Smithsonian to increase discovery and inspire learning in communities across America.”  It also says “Advancing a mission of ‘art about the American experience is a shared goal of both The Rockwell And Smithsonian Affiliation.  Together, the Rockwell and the Smithsonian Institution are positioned to exhibit works that depict American culture and document our countries evolving experience.” And my Trump Painting does not fit this definition of purpose?


The Rockwell Museum is obviously not interested in assisting me on this historic American creative journey, a journey of a newborn American citizen, fully involved in the ‘Art Of Politics’, supported by elected representatives of over 200,000 people, and in an area that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, but they will pay $60,000.00 to have a left wing activist, Hollywood celebrity come and speak right before the election!  I think the reasons are obvious and evince a design to squelch knowledge and information that they disagree with and obviously dislike!


The short response from Director Swain at the Rockwell Museum fails to even acknowledge the Trump story or The Trump painting, again causing one to wonder about how seriously they understand or even appreciate art unless of course it fits their political agenda!  That position is fine if they openly state their bias and support that side of the political spectrum.  But pretending to be open to all persuasions and yet failing to be true to that position is very disturbing to me!


Something the very founder of the Smithsonian, Mr. James Smithson, declared was the very purpose of the Smithsonian Museum. “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” James Smithson.


My 13 page application, prints of the painting, supported by many letters of recommendation from elected representatives of over 200,000 constituents was rejected because of a ‘poverty of resources!’  The Rockwell has shown no interest in the story, or obviously even an interest in showing my painting to the vastly pro Trump area in which we live since they have had over a year to do it!


I am thus issuing a formal complaint against the Rockwell Museum, Director Swain And Patty Campbell for deliberately rejecting my pro Trump story, my political views and my art and failing in their role as a Smithsonian Institute affiliate since it is an obvious censorship of knowledge!


I hereby request that you would please forward this application to the appropriate persons at the National Portrait Gallery.  This application has also been forwarded to Senator David Perdue who sits on the board of Regents at the Smithsonian Institute and to the Trump Campaign and those representatives who have supported this effort.


Sincerely grateful for your time,


Julian Raven





Email to Director Of The Rockwell Museum Kristin Swain:


——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Smithsonian Application, Senator O’Mara, Congressman Reed &
Other Letters of Recommendation
From: <>
Date: Tue, November 22, 2016 5:55 pm

Dear Director Swain,


My name is Julian Raven, artist and painter of the Trump Portrait & Painting, ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’.  My studio is located in Elmira, New York.  Since The Rockwell Museum recently became a Smithsonian Affiliate, it made sense to approach you first about my application to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, wishing to involve the regional art community on this historic journey.  The details and specifics about the application are contained in the attached application document. (Please read)


My desire to make the submission to the Smithsonian through the Rockwell Museum Of Art has a multitude of potentially beneficial results that can positively affect the Twin Tiers region.  First and foremost, this submission is supported by elected representatives (please see the attached letters, more are on their way.) from the region, which represent over 200,000 constituents.  This support demonstrates the understanding of our recently re-elected Republican representatives, Senator Tom O’Mara, Congressman Reed and others of this historic creative journey that I find myself on, as a newborn US citizen residing in upstate New York, Artist and grassroots Trump political activist. Their unanimous support brings a new level of recognition to this already nationally recognized work of art.


Through the local submission of The Trump Portrait & Painting ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’, the arts in the region will be able to celebrate this great story that has found its genesis right here in Elmira, New York.  With all of the negatives spoken about our region, the economic depression, the ‘brain drain’ and the many other upstate New York struggles we face as residents, this story will bring another layer of contradiction to the often times hopeless prevailing attitude, which as with all positive and powerful creative stories, will inspire others to dream again!


For a local Elmira Artist to have his work on show at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington D.C. for the inauguration of President Elect Donald J. Trump will be a great accomplishment both for my self as a professional artist and for the City Of Elmira, the Rockwell Museum Of Art and the surrounding region.


Economically, this story has the potential to assist our locally distressed economies on a practical business level as well. Since the region is filled with many vacant commercial properties, my story of the transformation of my forgotten downtown Elmira art studio has the potential to highlight the great things that can be accomplished with the affordable commercial properties that are available locally.  From a semi-abandoned building to its ongoing renovation to the creation of a historically significant work of art, others can be inspired to do the same, thus stimulating investment upstate.  Since I secured the 6000 sq. ft. space to permit me to paint huge paintings, this direction was conducive to me painting the huge Trump Painting, ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’.  Great things can still be done in Elmira and beyond!


The involvement for the arts in the region by the participation of the Rockwell Museum Of Art will bring a new level of accomplishment for our local arts community on the national stage.  This request is also an invitation to you and the Rockwell Museum to join me on this journey to Washington D.C.  We can discuss at your convenience the different levels of engagement that Museum can have by assisting me in this effort.  From the application process to actually being present and a participant at the National Portrait Gallery for the unveiling ceremony to be held in D.C. the week of the inauguration of President Elect Donald J. Trump.


This collaboration and potential participation with the Rockwell Museum of Art now depends upon you.  Due to the time constraints and the fast approaching inauguration, please let me know as soon as possible the level of involvement, if any that you would like to have.  I have 5 application packages I would like to give to you with hard copies of the application, letters of recommendation and prints of the Trump Painting for yourselves and to be submitted to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery’s curatorial department. This email can also be forwarded for that purpose.


If you decide to assist me in this endeavor, please indicate a time when you would like to visit my art studio to see the Trump Portrait and Painting, ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’.  If you decide it is not something that you are interested in then please inform me immediately so I may pursue other avenues.


Sincerely grateful for your time,


Julian Raven





Response To Rejection Of Trump Portrait By Dr. Richard Kurin, Provost At The Smithsonian Institute

13 Dec

Julian Marcus Raven

2524 County Route 60

Elmira, New York, 14901

December 11th, 2016





Dr. Richard Kurin,

Acting Provost and Under Secretary For Museums & Research

Smithsonian Castle on the National Mall

1000 Jefferson Drive, SW, Art Room 219

MRC 040 PO Box 37012

Washington D.C. 20013-7012

(202) 633-5240

(202) 357-7031 Fax




Dear Dr. Kurin,


I did receive your letter emailed to me late on Friday the 9th of December 2016 in the afternoon. Below you will find my response. Please find your comments in red, mine are in black.


“We appreciate receiving your letter of December 7 to the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents,”

It was not just a letter, but a letter of “Appeal” consisting of over 20 pages in length and in response to the arbitrary, biased and procedurally illegal objections to my painting by Director Kim Sajet, which are clearly laid out in the appeal and Press Release. My primary email version was sent to the Chief Of Staff Wilkinson with the request that it be forwarded to each member of the board.


Is this email of yours a response from each member of the board? Are you speaking in the capacity as an appointed member by Congress to express such a sweeping opinion? Or was my request to forward the ‘Letter of Appeal’ ignored and given to you for a response? It seems strange to me that again in such a short amount of time, by someone not addressed in the email and in such a short and vague manner my formal appeal was not attended to by the right persons, since addressing any of the information directly in the appeal was not included in your letter! For your information, hard copies are on their way to each member of the Board of Regents so that they can attend to this matter as they were appointed. All of this has come about because Director Kim Sajet failed to give due consideration and due process to my application to the National Portrait Gallery as documented.


“…regarding your proposal to exhibit your portrait of President-elect Trump at the National Portrait Gallery. The Board has referred your letter to me for a response.”


This reply is another hasty attempt to continue to deny me my rights as a member of the American Citizenry to a fair hearing and redress in the matter of my grievances that has been presented before each esteemed member of The Board Of Regents. It is another insult both to the founder of the Smithsonian Mr. James Smithson whose dying wish, was that an institution bearing his name be established for the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge.’ and to the clearly stated standards of consideration established by Congress in 1963. Nearly at every step of this application process so far, has been met with a disposition that shows complete and utter disregard, indifference and a willful dereliction of duty regarding the expressed Will Of The People, in this case expressed by the official support of my application to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery by elected New York representatives of over 200,000 people! There seems to be a continual effort to refuse my application before it has been evaluated by the Congress established ‘process’ that should be guided by established principles that should be honored and followed! It behooves me that this ‘process’ is continually alluded to and at the same time the ‘process’ is continually ignored?


“Consistent with recent tradition, the Gallery has long planned to hang a portrait of the President-elect before his Inauguration.”


It has only been just over a month since Mr. Trump became President Elect, and you say the National Portrait Gallery has “long planned”; please supply me with documentation to that effect at your earliest convenience. With the dramatic win by Mr. Trump, one would have thought that this ‘long planned’ event would have been made public as soon as it was planned as obviously it indicates that the Smithsonian is excited about this historic event and its ability to ‘Increase and diffuse knowledge.’


Why would a “long planned” event involving showing an irrelevant and dated photo of Donald Trump justify completely ignoring a work of art that specifically deals with the election, like the Obama poster did? Why is it only now that the Smithsonian is announcing this after my application highlighted the NPG established precedent by showing the Obama poster on January 17th, 2009? Also, since the subsequent rejection of my historic portrait has come to light in the media, why since it was ‘long planned’ was it not mentioned before my application on the 1st Of December 2016? Ah yes, I get it, it must have been a great secret because of the surprise and suspense surrounding such an exciting ‘long planned’ event, since such a monumental and inspiring work of art, an old, 1989 photo of Donald Trump, to quote the Smithsonian press release, “tossing an apple in the air with his right hand” was going to go on show!


Why would this ‘recent tradition’ be so prohibitive and rigid to even considering another portrait of Donald Trump that happens to be something that reflects the recent dramatic election rather than a photo from 1989, which is anything but relevant to the election? It is akin to you showing a photo of Donald Trump as a baby to commemorate this historic and unprecedented Presidential win that is pregnant with the massive potential increase and diffusion of pictorial knowledge! Since I imagine the ‘recent tradition’ alludes to the January 17th, 2009 showing of the election campaign Obama poster, why would not that same tradition demand a politically relevant work of art be shown like the Obama poster was? Why would the Smithsonian which ‘owns’ 8 Obama portraits, according to Director Sajet, be so closed to the idea of showing or even acquiring another Trump Portrait, thus increasing and diffusing pictorial knowledge? And why would it be so terrible to have 2 or more portraits on show at the same time for the inauguration for this most historic event? Why not show them all and include this undeniably prophetic, patriotic, symbolic and now historic portrait of now President Elect Donald J. Trump?


“A portrait of Mr. Trump from the National Portrait Gallery’s collection will be on display at the Gallery beginning January 13, 2017.”


So the Smithsonian NPG received and showed, whether by gift or by acquisition, a poster/portrait of then President Elect Obama back in 2009 before the inauguration of then another historic Presidential election and displayed such to commemorate and celebrate the massive increase and diffusion of pictorial knowledge, correct? And regardless of the questionable story behind the creation of the poster, one cannot deny its historicity and relevance to the Obama campaign and so rightly it should have been shown. It would have denied the art world a voice in sharing in that historic moment that so many millions of Americans celebrated.


When it comes to my application to show an equally relevant and historic presidential campaign work of art, mine is denied. I am not offering my work as a gift or requiring that you purchase or even consider my work for purchase, it is simply to show the work for the inauguration. My painting may not have received the same degree of exposure that the Obama poster did and there are reasons for that. The same resistance to showing my work of art at the Smithsonian was experienced since the first day it was unveiled back on November 1st, 2015. The hostility and hatred in Academia, Hollywood, The Media and especially the Art World towards Mr. Trump is more than well documented and that attitude was also directed at my painting! But regardless of the ‘degree’ of recognition, there is no doubt to the objective and honest mind that the sole, relevant and recognized pro-Trump work of art, portrait and painting from the historic Trump campaign was my painting ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’!


“The decision about whether to acquire or display a work of art at the National Portrait Gallery rests in the first instance with that museum’s director, curators and historians. I have spoken with Kim Sajet, director of the National Portrait Gallery, and concur with her decision to decline your offer and continue with the museum’s plan to display a portrait of Mr. Trump from our collections. Thank you for your interest in the Smithsonian and the National Portrait Gallery, sincerely Richard Kurin.”


Mr. Kurin, again without giving a substantive educated critique, with no historical commentary, no election relevance or significance, no consideration as to the “increase in knowledge’ that would come, no consideration of the Museum’s standards for acquiring/showing a portrait, you concur with Director Sajet in her unfounded and illegal objections to my application.   If you were just a private gallery, you could be so arbitrary, but the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery belongs to ‘We The People’ and so you ultimately work for us. And so it will be determined by the appointed representatives/members of the Board Of Regents who also work for ‘We The People’ of the United States of America to serve our interests in the creation of our pictorial historical narrative for us and for our children’s children to enjoy.


“There is a process we go through when we acquire a work of art and it has to be decided by the museum’s curators and director, so it’s a process, and we really don’t need to go through such a process since we already have our own.” Linda St. Thomas


Here the Smithsonian has taken another approach in its reasoning for the objection to my painting. Here the ‘process’ again is mentioned as binding and yet in my case it is ignored since the consensus seems to be that the Smithsonian has enough art relating to Donald Trump. Amazingly the Smithsonian spokeswoman said you ‘really don’t need to go through such a process because you already have enough art of your own?’ Where is the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge’ in such a statement? The application ‘process’ is voided, ignored and bypassed because you have enough pictorial knowledge of Donald Trump from 20 years ago? This statement would indicate that the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery only needs a few old paintings or photos of any subject and that is enough! Rejecting the idea that an INCREASE of new art, new photos, new portraits, new PICTORIAL KNOWLEDGE of historic figures and historic events are relevant and necessary to accurately tell our American story. It is like digging up an old photo of the Twin Towers from when they were built and showing that image alone to describe the horrors of the 911 terror attacks and of their destruction, willfully ignoring and censoring any image, this any pictorial knowledge that actually shows the attack, subsequent destruction, the chaos that ensued, the reconstruction and then ongoing yearly memorialization! My goodness, what type of an institution has the Smithsonian become?


So now art submitted by the People to the Smithsonian Institution, the museum that belongs to the People for consideration for becoming part of the pictorial historical narrative of the American People during this historic election of Donald J. Trump is refused because you already have enough images? Amazing, with the spokeswoman’s comments the Smithsonian is now even barred from acquiring any more Trump related artwork since it has officially stated that it has enough! Wow, in Trump’s case 4 portraits are enough but in Obama’s case 8 portraits! But then again, precedent by acquisition would indicate that at least 8 Trump portraits would need to be acquired to be fair to the presidential collection?


It is clear to me that Director Sajet’s original series of personal and unfounded objections, bypassed the requirement to have the consideration pass through the ‘process’.   So in effect you and Director Sajet have agreed, that my painting is not even worthy of qualifying for the ‘process’, since neither of you have demonstrated in any way how my painting does not meet the standards for consideration and acquisition established by Congress. It has been refused regardless of the established criteria for such a refusal! I would accept such an arbitrary refusal from a private institution where there is no recourse or process of appeal. Where on a whim somebody because of personal taste, prejudice or utter dislike can refuse a work without the slightest consideration. But since the Smithsonian Institution belongs to the people of the United States, every consideration will be given to every possible avenue of application and appeal to ensure that every respect and every detail of due process is afforded me as determined by the laws that govern the United Stated Of America and its institutions.


“A portrait of Mr. Trump from the National Portrait Gallery’s collection will be on display at the Gallery beginning January 13, 2017.”



By failing to even consider my application, by failing to show my historic work of Art, which is directly related to the election of Donald J. Trump, the Smithsonian has in effect barred any relevant commemorative expression in the arts from taking place and has abdicated its responsibility to be an institution established for the ‘Increase And Diffusion of knowledge’. The Smithsonian rather seems to have become an irrelevant and dated museum, using dated material or old pictorial knowledge, where the increase and diffusion of knowledge has ceased, one of the Achilles heels of institutions built on archival knowledge.


Some of the 60 plus million people who voted for Donald Trump, who will travel to D.C. for the inauguration and there after will have a 20 year old photo graph of Donald J. Trump “… tossing an apple up with his right hand.” to see at the Smithsonian! Wow! How intellectually stimulating, how enlightening and O my, how exciting!


Mr. Kurin, in all honesty how many people do you think are going to go out of their way to see an old, dated and uninspiring photo of Donald Trump throwing an apple in the air? Just on a purely business level this decision seems to want to fail or keep people away!





Julian Raven


13 Dec


December 13th, 2016

Smithsonian Says NO To Trump Portrait – Smithsonian Has 4 OLD Trump Portraits “Apple Tossing Trump” PHOTO From 1989 Will Do For Inauguration Of Trump

Mr. James Smithson founded the Smithsonian Institute for the ‘Increase and diffusion of Knowledge’. As unprecedented global historic events have unfolded recently with the election of Donald J. Trump, one would think that a correlating historical pictorial expression would take place at our Nations most prestigious National Art Museum, the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery.

We are delighted to inform you that it will take place just as imagined! The Trump Art Show is ON!

BREAKING NEWS: In a classic David and Goliath battle, the Smithsonian Institute has issued a series of seemingly pointless and empty statements in their present objections to showing The Trump portrait and painting by artist Julian Raven, ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’.  Dr. Richard Kurin, Smithsonian Provost and Under Secretary for Museums & Research, appeals to ‘recent tradition’ as validation for his rejection of the Trump Portrait.  See letter here:

A supposed ‘Long Planned’ event, secret until the now, rejected Trump Portrait application was submitted on December 1st, 2016, forced the Smithsonian to show its hand on December 9th, 2016 by releasing a ‘press release’ about this wonderful and formerly secret event.  With full red, white and blue patriotic fervor, the Smithsonian Institute plans to show the ‘Apple Tossing Trump’ photo by Michael O’Brien, at the National Portrait Gallery for the historic commemoration of the unprecedented Trump election win and inauguration.

Questioned by Michelle Ross of WETM18 News about the refusal to even accept the application and show the Pro-Trump campaign portrait and painting, the spokeswoman for the Smithsonian issued another stunning statement.

“There is a process we go through when we acquire a work of art and it has to be decided by the museum’s curators and director, so it’s a process, and we really don’t need to go through such a process since we already have our own.” Linda St. Thomas

There you have it folks, no ‘process’ is ever necessary, in fact throw it to the wind, when you already have in your archives the necessary outdated artwork to commemorate such a current historic event.  We were surprised that the Smithsonian did not insist on using a photo of Donald Trump as a baby for such an auspicious occasion!

Back on January the 17th, 2009, the Smithsonian showed the political campaign Obama ‘Hope’ poster to commemorate the historic election of then President Elect Obama.  But now, rejecting the ‘too political’ campaign portrait and painting as ‘unnecessary’ since the Smithsonian has the 1989 photo of Donald Trump ‘Tossing an apple with his right hand!” Yes you heard it right here people, Trump actually tossing an apple into the air with his right hand.  The relevance to Trump’s ‘meteoric’ political campaign must be hidden in the symbolism of the flying apple! Such profundities never cease to amaze us at the Smithsonian!

With this staggering news about this formerly secret ‘long planned’ artistic and pictorial event to be held at the National Portrait Gallery, we can already see the lines of tourists, Trump supporters and media lining up to get a glimpse of the now passé, antiquated yet resuscitated ‘Apple tossing meteoric Trump!’






Is there Anti-Trump & Anti Pro-Trump Art Bias/Blackout in the local media?

6 Oct

You may not like Donald Trump or his supporters.  You may not like me, Julian Raven, my painting or my efforts to help elect Trump for President.  And that is ok, we live in a great country where freedom is cherished.


The problem locally is the deliberate effort by the local media, The Stat Gazette, The Leader, WENY and WETM to ignore news worthy events related to Trump.  Since November the 1st 2015, these so called objective ‘news’ sources have done their best to ignore this story.  At first I thought maybe I was imagining things? I invited over 50 journalists and news platforms for the unveiling of the 8×16 foot Trump painting which took me nearly 600 hours to finish back on November 1st, 2015.  One reporter came from Time Warner Cable News.


This proves that the invitation went out and was received and at least someone covered it from Binghamton.  At that time Trump was still not taken seriously.  But there was nothing going on that night on November the first locally, where were the rest of them?  We secured the Split Rock Cafe in the Arena and had a rally for Trump and Dan Mandell and unveiled the Trump painting.  A local story about art, faith, patriotism and local politics completely ignored!

Since then I personally have travelled the country on my patriotic journey as a new born citizen.  The painting has been part of a grassroots campaign that has been life changing.  The 30 day, 5700 mile IOWA Caucused campaign was covered by conservative talker Frank Acomb from Frankly Speaking in Corning.  This remarkable journey of faith, art and patriotism was completely ignored locally but picked up nationally and internationally.


5 local grassroots Trump rallies later and only 2 reporters in total have come, the one from TWC and an Ithaca reporter from the Ithaca Times.  The local media was invited to each event.  WETM’s Tenner Jubenville did a piece on the Trump Banner at my art studio.  But when it came to covering the rally which he wanted to do, was unable to make it.

At our last rally we had a handful of New York politicians or their representatives about 120 people and it was a great rally.  For the run-down part of Elmira I am working on restoring, Baldwin St. had not seen so much traffic in many years!


Elmira grassroots Trump rally.

Since painting the Trump painting, I became a US citizen, a grassroots campaigner for Donald Trump and an Alternate Delegate from New York who within 9 months of becoming a citizen was sitting on the front row of the New York Delegation at the Republican National Convention! I did not realize what a big deal that was until I went to Cleveland.  What an honor!  And what a blessing from God!


NY GOP Chairman Ed Cox at Delegation HQ in Cleveland, RNC.

So, is there a media blackout locally against Trump, pro Trump art and Trump supporters?  Well read this article about the national media and another pro-Trump art event and see what you think.  ‘New York Journalists Concoct Media Blackout Against Pro-Trump Art Show’


What is so repulsive about this type of behavior is that these people pretend to be unbiased in their coverage of the news. If they were overtly liberal and admitted it, then fine be anti-Trump, but this type of skullduggery is reprehensible! It is a form a tyranny, it is an abuse of power!

I had asked Frank Acomb to write an invitation to Donald Trump to have him on his show. I forwarded it to the contacts in the Trump campaign that I have and within a month Donald Trump surprised Frank with a call in to his morning radio show. This was HUGE for Frank and his career. Since it was a surprise call in Frank put out a press release the next day to see if the local press/media was interested in sharing the great story and the great interview Frank conducted with Trump. Did anyone of the local news platforms pick up the story? You can answer that question.



Donald Trump And Frank Acomb

Since then my Trump painting has continued its journey. From the LA art show where it was on show with America’s most prominent political artists both liberal and conservative, to recently being featured in the highly liberal Huffington Post’s ‘If This Art Could Vote’ collection of 2016 Election Art.



Huffington Post ‘If This Art Could Vote’

This is relevant local Elmira news in my opinion. The frustration with biased media is very disheartening. One of my goals is to create a new local media platform to present the rest of the story. If you distrust the media and see the need as I do, then call me. 607-215-8711

Now you know the rest of the story!

Julian Raven.