Tag Archives: Richard Kurin

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.”