Archive | Uncategorized 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                                                                         

Plaintiff

v.

                                                                                                              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.)

 

Defendants

 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS

  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:

 

NATURE OF ACTION AGAINST DIRECTOR KIM SAJET

 

  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). http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/a44d1eef-b9c0-411f-83e7-a8c21612a575/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/52ee40c5-6084-4a72-af9e-aada122b17c4/BLJ_Spring09_James.pdf

 

 

  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)

 

NATURE OF ACTION AGAINST REMAINING DEFENDANTS

 

  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)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JURISDICTION

 

  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.

 

 

THE PARTIES

 

  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.”

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/probate_property_magazine_2012/2013/january_february_2013/article_ebner_shutting_down_fiduciary.html

 

  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. https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf 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.

 

 

BACKGROUND OF EVENTS

 

  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!

 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

 

  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!

 

DIRECTOR KIM SAJET OBJECTIONS:

 

  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’.

 

“TOO BIG”

 

  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.” https://www.si.edu/FAQs

 

  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)

 

LOANED PORTRAIT PRECEDENT FOR INAUGURATIONS/RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION

  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) http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-celebrates-2013-presidential-inauguration-exhibits-and-programs (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.

http://www.unafraid-and-unashamed.com/smithsonian-appeal.html (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

https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

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

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/761076/download

 

 

“NOT FROM LIFE”

 

  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

https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

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

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/761076/download

 

  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;”

http://siarchives.si.edu/history/national-portrait-galler

 

  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)

https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/761076/download

 

“TOO PRO-TRUMP” VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION

 

  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.

https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/761076/download

 

  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

https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

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

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/761076/download

 

 

 

 

“TOO POLITICAL”- VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION

 

  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!

 

ELECTION RELATED POLITICAL ART ACCEPTANCE PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED

 

  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!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/01/rs-portrait7.html

 

  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!

http://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.2008.52 (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!

http://siarchives.si.edu/history/national-portrait-gallery

 

 

ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW

 

  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.

http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29731

 

 

  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. http://siarchives.si.edu/history/national-portrait-gallery

This can be seen by Trump Cartoon ‘Portrait’ which is part of the NPG portrait collection! http://www.unafraid-and-unashamed.com/smithsonian-trump-portraits.html

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

14 Standards Of Ethical Conduct- Smithsonian

https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf

  • 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service.

The 14 General Principles of Ethical Conduct For Federal Employees

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

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/761076/download

 

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS OF PARTICIPATION & APPLICATION ‘PROCESS’

 

  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)

 

http://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/9_Stat_102.pdf 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.” https://www.si.edu/FAQs
  2. The 1963 commission clearly said “Thus, the standards for accepting portraits varied considerably from other galleries.”  http://siarchives.si.edu/history/national-portrait-gallery
  3. Please see The Smithsonian NPG Bias Chart for a list of standards.

http://www.unafraid-and-unashamed.com/smithsonian-bias-chart.html

 

 

  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.

 

 

WRONGFUL EXCLUSION

 

  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.”  http://siarchives.si.edu/history/national-portrait-gallery

 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

 

  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!’

 

 

APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS, TRUSTEES OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

 

  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.” https://www.justia.com/estate-planning/trusts/trustee-duties-and-liabilities/ 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! https://www.si.edu/content/governance/pdf/IRC_report.pdf

 

  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. RICHARD KURIN’S LETTER

 

  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. https://www.si.edu/content/governance/pdf/IRC_report.pdf

 

  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!

 

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/smithsonian-concealed-bill-cosby-donation-316275

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/07/15/african-art-museum-director-in-difficult-place-with-bill-cosby-allegations/?utm_term=.f7f6512b05cf

 

 

ACTIONS OF SMITHSONIAN SPOKESWOMAN LINDA ST. THOMAS

 

  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.””

 

WETM18 NEWS:http://www.mytwintiers.com/news/local-news/smithsonian-institution-rejects-elmira-artists-trump-painting/617527260

 

  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: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/13/smithsonian-says-no-to-new-york-artists-trump-portrait/#ixzz4TIWzanuZ

 

  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

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/barack-obama-is-the-man-of-the-moment-at-the-portrait-gallery-32753204/

 

“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.” https://www.si.edu/FAQs

 

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, ‘..an 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: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/20/3/I/50#sthash.fJ6rYrve.xF90HzSk.dpuf

 

  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?

 

THE SILENCE OF THE CHIEF NPG CURATOR BRANDON BRAME FORTUNE

 

  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)

 

FIDUCIARY LIABILITY OF THE U.S. CONGRESS AND CONGRESSMAN ROY BLUNT

 

 

  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!

 

CONCLUSION

 

  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.

IRC REPORT https://www.si.edu/content/governance/pdf/IRC_report.pdf

 

  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.

 

 

 

 

 

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

 

  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.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

 

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

607-215-8711

Email: info@julianraven.com

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.”

Advertisements

– FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE –

13 Dec

 

Julian Raven, Artist

714 Baldwin St.

Elmira, NY 14901

607-215-8711

December 6th, 2016

 

SMITHSONIAN DIRECTOR KIM SAJET REJECTS TRUMP PORTRAIT BUT SHOWED OBAMA POSTER!

“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 www.thetrumpportrait.com

http://www.unafraid-and-unashamed.com/smithsonian-application-1.html

 

Contact: 607-215-8711

The Trump Painting Application To The Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery For The Inauguration Of President Elect Donald J. Trump

24 Nov

Julian Raven, Artist                                                                                

714 Baldwin St., Elmira, New York, 14901

November 15th, 2016

607-215-8711

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-art-of-politics-the-trump-painting

Introduction

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; www.julianraven.com, 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

Election Art Precedent

“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!

screen-shot-2016-11-22-at-1-08-31-am

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.

http://face2face.si.edu/my_weblog/2009/01/now-on-view-portrait-of-barack-obama-by-shepard-fairey.html

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

politicon-7-best

 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.

1e9c10d8ba7105aed6ef86cc26f255f0
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’!

the-artist-at-work-2

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.

signing-painting

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!

screen-shot-2016-07-08-at-10-19-02-pm
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 (politicon.com). 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”

a50f2a8b9cff2679e8f3f2cef8a557fb

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: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4612500/trump-family-know-video (Also see the massive media coverage at www.thetrumppainting.com

the-trump-painting-trump-painting-trump-poltical-art-rnc-cleveland-convention-julian-raven-lynne-patton

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!

Now the next stage of this historic journey is upon us. The prophecy is fulfilled, Donald J. Trump will become the next President of the United States on January the 20th, 2017. Will the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery be part of this story?   That decision rests upon you.

Attached are some of the official letters from elected representatives and important individuals who represent over 200,000 New York citizens and have spoken on their behalf by supporting the effort to have the Trump portrait and painting on show as a tribute and for the inauguration of the next President of the United States.

Obviously this work of art is a massive Trump supporter magnet. It will guarantee some of President Elect Trump’s 60 million supporters will have a place to visit to see the historic work of art!

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’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MaAK31nDxU
The Making of The Trump Painting/Portrait ‘Unafraid And Unashamed’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9xO_Fe3FOA
November 1st, 2015 the beginning of the fine art grassroots campaign for Donald trump by Artist Julian Raven
http://www.twcnews.com/nys/binghamton/news/2015/11/1/local-artist-unveils-patriotic-painting-inspired-by-donald-trump.html
Unwavering support, Mayor Mandell Recommendation
http://www.mytwintiers.com/news/local-news/unafraid-and-unashamed-meet-the-man-behind-the-trump-painting
Beyond Rage And Anger To America, Vision Of Hope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB3h7TNboJM
Washington Free Beacon- Culture- Loyal Supporters.
http://freebeacon.com/culture/immigrant-christian-abstract-expressionists-for-trump/
New York Times: Art Section:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/california-staff-workers-illness-republican-convention.html
The only Pro-Trump painting to be included in the anti-Trump Huffington Post’s Art gallery ‘If This Art Could Vote’: http://ifthisartcouldvote.huffingtonpost.com/

Please see more at:

www.thetrumppainting.com

http://www.julianraven.com

www.facebook.com/julianravenUSA

www.twitter.com/julianmraven

http://www.wordpress.com/julianraven

CC: Senator O’Mara, New York

CC: Congressmen Reed and Collins, New York

CC: Mayor Mandell, Elmira, New York

CC: Assemblymen Friend and Palmesano, New York

CC: Chairmen/Chairwomen Cox, Strange, Cady, King and Sempolinski, New York

CC: Chemung County Legislators, Kenneth J. Miller and Joe Brennan

CC: Frank Acomb, Frankly Speaking Radio

CC: Brad Davis & Andrea Gates, Art Collectors

CC: Lynne Patton, Trump Org.

Letters of recommendation attached. Some are still in production and will be forwarded when they arrive or I am still waiting on the original signed version.

See the letters of recommendation at: http://www.thetrumppainting.com

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

The Trump Painting Trump Portrait Story

19 Nov

unafraid-and-unashamed-digi

Prophetic, Symbolic, Patriotic…..Historic!

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 that 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.

http://www.thetrumppainting.com

 

 

 

Liberal Art Is Dead

11 Nov

 

The massive, unending slurry of hate-filled, hate-mongering, shameful and visionless art from the liberal art world has contributed to this staggering political Trump victory and now defeated and drifting liberal political ideology.

screen-shot-2016-10-03-at-11-24-14-am

 

The media, which has salivated, gleefully covered and promoted the unending ‘art’ stories of the shock & hate art that has oozed out of the deepest and darkest caverns of the human heart, now has to sit in the cesspool of hatred. Masquerading as ‘art’ this death dealing created power now rests squarely upon the media’s shoulders. The hellish and gravity magnifying pull of celebrated perversion and darkness is causing this implosion and this irresistible, powerful dragging force driving it back to where it comes from.

 

The elitist art world, which glorifies smut, celebrates the mockery of faith, ridicules patriotism and has excoriated Donald Trump throughout this 2015-2016-election season, has finally damned itself.

 

The end of the morality, Christ hating, conservative mocking, drunken and frenzied Art world has finally choked and drowned itself in its own vomit. Drunk on its power to graphically and artistically attack, ridicule and destroy precious, sacred and eternal values in the name of ‘Art’ has come to a grinding halt as the climax of this now self devoured liberal ideology has lost control and wrecked itself by driving headfirst into a tree.

 

By falsely depicting and deliberately misrepresenting Donald Trump in so many varied and wicked ways, the art world and the media created an image of Donald Trump that they now have to live with inside of their own heads. They believed, they created their own nightmare, their own horror story, filled with monstrous, demonic and ghoulish depictions of Trump created with every stroke of their corrupt brushes and now they alone have to live in that hell. And that is why they are so devastated because their own created reality has come to haunt them.

 

Rather than champion their so called conservative crushing ‘progressive visions’ with magnificent paintings of their hopes, rather than celebrate their ideas and cherished so called principals, they coughed up no vision, no dreams, no existentially positive images! Life, true hope and true existential visions cannot be produced from hearts so inclined towards celebrating sin and evil. It is impossible for sweet and bitter water to issue forth from the same fountain. The desperate and desolate condition of the hearts of those plagued by the scourge of liberalism is now on full display.

 

The good news in all of this is that people can turn. People can turn away from their ways, people can be redeemed! Repentance is a grace which God offers to the lost. Recognizing one’s condition, humbling one’s self and crying out for salvation is the beginning of the road home.

 

Liberal Art Is dead!

The Art Of Trolling Trump By Artists & The Media

3 Oct

It is so frustrating, so infuriating to see liberals bending over backwards and embracing some absolutely tawdry political art in their desperation to justify and explain away their political woes, fears and anger. They are propping up every form of artistic demagoguery in their seeming desperation to make sense of their ultimately pointless worldview. Both the typical liberal art world and the unbiased liberal media have become the very throbbing and engorged womb for whence ooze the Trump trolling artists. Somewhat like that Lord of the Rings scene when those nasty Orks are seen being born into Middle Earth from slimy, muddy underground pods, these hordes of Trump art trolls are a seemingly endless marching army.

The glory, power and crucible of human achievement, the art world of Michael Angelo, Da Vinci, Bernini, Goya, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Degas, Renoir, Monet, Manet, Picasso, Dali et al, has been reduced to celebrated artistic trolls, trolling and propagating their scratchings and scribbles! The history of art, the great art masters and their masterpieces climax in 2016 in the never-ending slurry of lifeless Trump troll art. What is amazing to me is the sheer quantity of troll excrement that is being dumped into the somewhat sacred, historic and well-polished corridors of art history.

imgres-1

Yes, yes I know that others have come along in the last 100 years and slid their urinals down the well-waxed halls of art history, peddled sharks in formaldehyde or flogged their unmade bed replete with cigarette butts. Just a quick visit to the Museum of Modern Art in New York City and one is reminded that much of modern art is simply stale crap! Please do not mistake what I am saying, I said ‘much’, is peddled by unscrupulous art dealceivers to the easily influenced, desperate for the next ‘now’ thing and yet so unprincipled, since there are always suckers with big bucks!

You see, if liberals and liberalism pushed by the liberal Democratic party really had the ingredients for true positive hope filled change, America would be singing a different tune today. President Barrack Obama has had nearly eight years to peddle his ideology, push his agenda and transform America! Folks he has had more than enough time, he has had the chance! And truth be told he has brought change, but the mantra he rode, his magic carpet of ‘Hope and Change’ turned out to be missing a wheel, the wheel of hope! Change has come but not for the better. America is no better now than when Obama took office. And granted many of our problems are not his fault, what we can learn and see in his policies, ideas and leadership is clearly on display today. Massive unsustainable debt, economic uncertainty, employment uncertainty, increased national racial tension, insane international deals and immigration run amok are just some of the pressing issues of the day.

imgres

If the troll artists, liberal troll artists had a point, if they had a vision, if they just had something worth selling, something they are positively passionate and excited about they would be focused on selling that. Their art would express, reveal and celebrate that, they would be so focused on the power and greatness of their ideas and visions that the diversions of the opposition, in this case Donald Trump would just not even catch their attention. Michelle Obama said, “When they go low, we go high” which is an admirable moral quality which obviously does not apply to troll artists and the unbiased media.

The human heart brings forth what it contains by the words and art we create. “A good man brings good things (art) out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things (art) out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” Luke 6:45. So with the failure of ‘Hope And Change’ under Barrack Obama, those who once rode the wave of what is now demonstrated to be empty promises, are still angry, hopeless and full of hate which they cannot help but express through their paint brushes! Blaming Donald Trump now, painting him as the scapegoat for their lack of answers and solutions is the work of the politically and ideologically defeated! Donald Trump would not even be in the election had Obama succeeded in helping America. He would simply hand the baton to the next liberal democratic runner and there would be no contest.

But America is just not going to drink the cool aid of liberal ‘Hope And Change’ any more. And since a genuine change agent and leader has stood up, the art trolls have gone into a frenzy and have rushed out of their holes in the ground in defense of their failed ideas of pseudo ‘hope and change’. And since all they can do is spit into the very winds of real change and of history blowing and howling in their faces, one can almost gladly conclude that their very undoing, and the undoing of their failed liberal ideas and policies is not far off.

Liberalism is going to go under the bus for a very long time. President Obama, the now defunct champion of ‘hope’ with artist Shepherd Fairey’s help, has been a failure on so many levels. Although to be fair to Fairey, his work embodied positive vision, sincere hope for change, which sadly remains just wishful thinking nearly eight years later.  America is awakening because of the local, national and global escalating problems we face, and the recognition that something must change now for real!

The latest artistic plastic Trump troll statuesque monstrosities are a successful marketing gimmick but that is it. Even spending time mentioning the plastic Trump troll statues, which have graced the streets of cities all over the country falls into the very purpose of their cunning ploy. But alas, their work is ideologically and politically self-defeating. It evinces their putrid and worthless worldview. It reveals the content of their heart, and the condition of extrapolated self-contradictory liberalism in its final condition.

The hypocrisy is mind numbing, the continual leftist liberal cry for ‘safe spaces’, ‘anti-bullying’, ‘gay friendly’, ‘LGBTQ tolerance’, ‘Save the Whales’, ‘Save the Planet’, ‘Green Revolution’, ‘Gluten Free’, ‘Yoga pants’, ‘save the planet’ are completely undone when these radical leftists show their true colors when they create such hypocritical environmentally unfriendly plastic statues as they attempt to ‘fat shame’, ‘body shame’, ‘sex shame’. ‘age shame’ and even ‘hair shame’ Donald Trump. And naturally the world of closet trolls, Trump haters and the media just drink this stuff up, promote it with their photos, tweets and re-tweets by giving life to their outrageous hypocrisy.

Granted, in my opinion art should be enshrined in truth and thus art is a language that facilitates human expression even in the negative, critical and satirical. Troll art this election cycle has not only crossed over the line, but also smashed and crewed it up. If art is the license to violate every boundary of civility and decency with complete shocking disregard for our humanity, then what I have said is pointless, and sadly I must live in the dark ages of art.

1280px-el_tres_de_mayo_by_francisco_de_goya_from_prado_thin_black_margin

In his recent Time article ‘Why we’re losing the internet to the culture of hate’ on the destructive power of internet Trolls, Joel Stein paints a digital picture of digital hate. He opens with these words; “This story is not a good idea. Not for society and certainly not for me. Because what trolls feed on is attention. And this little bit–these several thousand words–is like leaving bears a pan of baklava.” Artists create work that only really becomes art when it receives attention, what good is a painting hidden in a garage? Artists crave attention for their work because that is the natural process of art. But in this twisted world of attention seeking artists, the unscrupulous degrees to which these troll artists go is beyond the pale and should be called as such not celebrated. The art world leaders, the art critics in the media, the artists of recognition should be the first to denounce this art terrorism, rapidly putting an end to any attention given to the trolls. Recognition should be given to that which is worthy not that which is forced!

anger

The difference between Internet trolls and art trolls is that the Internet troll usually just trolls one person at a time.   It is like a toad that can only spawn one offspring at a time. The art trolls are much more powerful in today’s pond, they are like the toads who spawn their brood in the millions, carrying them on their backs en-masse as they go on to release their brood into the pond. The power of the Internet to reproduce the image by a simple ‘click & share’ is unprecedented and the results can be nothing but on the level of complete contamination.

Sure Donald Trump is a controversial person. Sure he is polarizing. Sure that there are many people who dislike him. That is life. But the challenge to the liberal art world is can you say all that whilst maintaining a modicum of humanity, whilst being champions and visionaries of ‘Hope And Change’?

Never in my lifetime has there been such a desperate need for real ‘Hope and Change’. Art could once again cast these visions in picture form to the desperate world we all live in.

unafraid-and-unashamed-digi

By Julian Raven

 

 

The Great Trump Clinton Debate And a New Day

27 Sep

The Great Debate And The New Day

Donald Trump gets up one day and decides it is time to end the nonsense of political corruption and correctness that is crippling our Nation. He decides after years of watching inept politicians continually sabotage his country with one sided (benefiting the other side), lop sided and soft military and economic trade deals where America always picks up the tab and says that is it, I am done, I have to do something.

He embarks on a somewhat impossible mission as an unelected builder from New York. He goes up against a whole cadre of professional politicians in the primary and basically spanks them all and sends them home.

Trump is not a trained politician, skilled in the art of debate, he is a builder, a doer, a guy that sees the problems, calls them as they are and gets stuff done! That is what builders do, the do!

And last night that quality shone through all of the noise, back and forth jabbing, slugging and spitting. Trump courageously goes into the debate up against the quintessential queen of ambition, political greed and professional political spiel!

Colin Powell’s hacked emails were very telling for me. He had a close relationship with Clinton where he could call her a friend, and yet he savaged her as a person with “a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational.”

This assessment is totally damning as was on full view last night. Trump managed to continually point out that in 30 years Clinton really had not accomplished anything. Isis was created under her watch as Secretary of State and the debt continued to skyrocket, trillions of dollars remain overseas, and jobs kept leaving the US at unsustainable rates.

Clinton is the same old typical politician with a plan for this and that and the desire to always increase taxes and spend other people’s money on her plans that she has proven cannot fix the ‘systemic’ problems that she knows exists and yet that she is an intrinsic part of and that she cannot separate herself from!

Powell described Trump as a ‘National disgrace and a pariah’ and yet the difference with Powell’s opinion on both of these people is that Powell does not know Trump personally at all. But he knows Clinton intimately, he called her ‘friend’. Remember he said of her that she has “a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational.”

Trump just getting in the ring with the queen of the corrupt Clinton dynasty and the never ending and ongoing perpetual scandals was a defeat for the establishment. The mere fact that a non elected politician, by the will of the people got into the ring to slay the establishment queen of elites was of biblical proportions!

The Trump victory happened when he showed up! One would expect a 30 plus year politician to be able to out debate the builder from Manhattan. Trump specializes in building, doing and getting stuff done, Clinton is just at home playing politics. But the writing is already on the wall, the time has come to bring an end to the establishment political controlling dynasties, establishment elites and controlling political systems that have been created by long term ambitious politicians, managed by long term ambitious politicians and which have strangled the economy with asphyxiating and unsustainable debt driven by “unbridled ambition and greed”!

They have had their day and their day is over!

A new day has come!

Vote for change, vote Trump!
new-day