U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia September 28th, 2017

 

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

‘BIVENS ACTION’ PART 1 (Pages 1- 60)

‘FTCA’ PART 2 (Pages 61-117)

 

 

 


                                                                      

 

 

                                                       

Julian Marcus Raven                                                                            

                                                       

Plaintiff

 

  v.

                                                                                                                    Case No. 17-cv-01240-CKK    

                                                                                                                    Hon. Judge Kotelly                   

Mrs. Kim Sajet,

Director, Smithsonian Institution

National Portrait Gallery

Victor Building

750 Ninth St. NW

Suite 410

Washington D.C. 20001

 

And

 

Mr. Richard Kurin

Acting Provost, Smithsonian Institution

Smithsonian Castle on the National Mall

1000 Jefferson Drive, SW, Art room 219

Washington D.C. 20013-7012

 

And

 

The U.S.A.

 

Defendants





 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

JURISDICTION

 


The District Court, For the District of Columbia, in Washington D.C. has subject matter jurisdiction since this case involves; “…the United States Constitution;” Pro-se handbook Page  http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/ProSeNON-PRISONERManual.pdf

§ 11–501. Civil jurisdiction\

 

(4) Any civil action (other than a matter over which the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has jurisdiction under paragraph (3) or (4) of section 11-921(a)) begun in the court during the thirty-month period beginning on such effective date wherein the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.

 

HISTORICAL & LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

 

“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

 

“SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That so much of the property of the said James Smithson as has been received in money, and paid into the Treasury of the United States, being the sum of five hundred and fifteen thousand one hundred and sixty-nine dollars, be lent to the United States Treasury at six per cent per annum interest…” Smithsonian Act of Congress 1846

 

“SEC 3. And be it further enacted, That the business of the said Institution shall be conducted at the City of Washington by a board of regents, by the name of regents of the "Smithsonian Institution," Smithsonian Act of Congress 1846

 

“The Smithsonian Institution is a “trust instrumentality” of the United States—an organization established by the U.S. government as a public trust.  Created by the US Congress on August 10, 1846, through 9 Stat. 102, the Institution carries out the bequest of James Smithson (1765-1829) to create an establishment “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” https://siarchives.si.edu/history/legal-history

 

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.

 

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.

 

“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

 

The nature of the benevolent trust bequeathed by Mr. James Smithson 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 in the Smithsonian Institution Act.

 

Smithsonian Institution Statement of Values And Ethics, 2007

 

“The Smithsonian Institution is a public trust whose mission is the increase and diffusion of knowledge. The Smithsonian was established by the United States Congress to carry out the fiduciary responsibility assumed by the United States in accepting the bequest of James Smithson to create the Smithsonian Institution.”  Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“We are accountable to the general public as well as to the Smithsonian’s multiple stakeholders in carrying out this responsibility. We recognize that the public interest is paramount.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Serving the Smithsonian is a privilege and those who work on its behalf have a responsibility to maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, professionalism, and loyalty to the Institution.”

“We must ensure that our activities support the Smithsonian mission and take care to avoid conduct that would compromise the integrity of or public confidence in the Smithsonian. We acknowledge that in order to merit and preserve the public trust we must maintain a shared commitment to core values and an expectation of ethical and professional conduct in all of our activities.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

 “This Statement of Values and Code of Ethics establishes the standards and principles for ethical conduct that apply to the Institution collectively and to all members of the Smithsonian community, which includes Regents, staff, volunteers, advisory board members, fellows, interns, research associates, affiliated individuals, and others who have been entrusted to act on behalf of or in the name of the Smithsonian.”

“The Board of Regents was established by Congress to carry out the responsibilities of the United States as trustee of the Smithson trust.

“Given this unique and special status, the Smithsonian must be mindful that it is a public trust operating on behalf of the American public and the United States government to carry out its mission to increase and diffuse knowledge.”

“As such, the Smithsonian will be guided by the principles of the federal sector in the conduct of its activities whenever appropriate and consistent with its mission and trust responsibilities.”

“In all other cases, the Institution will follow the principles and best practices for fiduciary stewardship in the nonprofit sector.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“The Smithsonian Institution is committed to operating in a culture marked by openness, accessibility, and robust communication” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Effective transparency also requires open and reliable communication between the Board, management, and other stakeholders to support informed decision making.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Each member of the Smithsonian community is expected to act in accordance with professional standards, as well as with honesty, integrity, openness, accountability, and a commitment to excellence.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“The Smithsonian promotes a working environment that values respect, fairness, and integrity.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“We act in accordance with these values by treating our colleagues, the public, and others with whom we interact with dignity, civility, and respect.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“We are each responsible for being aware of and complying with applicable professional standards that govern our conduct, including those that relate to our particular discipline.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS All Smithsonian activities will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and international conventions. Members of the Smithsonian community are expected to become familiar with and comply with the laws and regulations that apply to their areas of responsibility.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“COMPLIANCE WITH SMITHSONIAN POLICIES, DIRECTIVES, AND PROCEDURES All Smithsonian activities will be conducted in accordance with established policies, directives, and procedures, which are designed to set standards for acceptable practices and activities. Members of the Smithsonian community are expected to conduct their activities in conformance with applicable policies, directives, and procedures and accordingly have an obligation to become familiar with those that apply to their areas of responsibility.”  Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“CONFLICTS OF INTEREST All members of the Smithsonian community have a duty to act in the best interest of the Smithsonian rather than in furtherance of their personal interest or for private gain. We must avoid apparent or actual conflicts of interest and ensure that potential conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed in accordance with applicable guidelines, directives, and standards of conduct.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“GOVERNANCE The Board of Regents is the governing authority for the Smithsonian and has the ultimate authority and responsibility for ensuring that Smithsonian resources, programs, and activities support the Smithsonian mission.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“The Board of Regents is responsible for establishing the strategic direction of the Institution, providing guidance on and oversight of Smithsonian policies and operations, ensuring that Smithsonian resources are responsibly and prudently managed in compliance with legal and ethical requirements, and regularly assessing the effectiveness of Smithsonian programs.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Regents are expected to understand their governance responsibilities and to devote the time and attention necessary to fulfill them.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“The Board of Regents takes action as a body through the collective judgment of its members.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Individual Regents do not represent the Board, except as may be authorized by the Board.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“ The Secretary and appropriate staff ensure that the Board of Regents is provided with timely, accurate, and complete information to enable the Regents to fulfill their responsibilities.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Managers and supervisors are expected to lead by example, establishing and following a high standard of ethics and accountability to be adhered to at all levels of their organizations.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Policies and practices to ensure compliance with these principles, as well as consistency with professional standards and best practices for responsible stewardship and internal control, are established, disseminated, kept current, and consistently applied at all levels of the organization.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“Accurate and complete records are maintained to support reliable financial reporting and to ensure accountability and positive control of the Smithsonian’s physical and financial assets.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“COLLECTIONS The Smithsonian develops, maintains, preserves, studies, exhibits, and interprets collections of art, artifacts, natural specimens, living animals and plants, images, archival and library materials, and audiovisual and digital media of unparalleled scope, depth, and quality. Stewardship of Smithsonian collections entails the highest public trust and carries with it the responsibility to provide prudent and responsible management, documentation, preservation, and use of the collections for the benefit of the public.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

 “The Smithsonian conducts these activities in accordance with professional standards and practices and ensures that legal requirements are observed and compliance is documented. Policies and practices to ensure compliance with these principles and consistency with professional standards and best practices for responsible collections stewardship are established, clearly articulated, disseminated, kept current, and consistently applied.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“EXHIBITIONS, EDUCATION, AND PUBLIC PROGRAMS To carry out its mission to increase and diffuse knowledge, the Smithsonian engages in and supports a vast array of exhibitions and educational and public programs in science, art, history, and culture. The Smithsonian conducts these activities in accordance with professional standards and practices and ensures that accuracy and intellectual integrity are the foundation for all exhibitions and educational and public programs produced in its name or under its auspices.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“We acknowledge and address diverse values, opinions, traditions, and concerns and ensure that our activities are open and widely accessible. Policies and practices to ensure compliance with these principles and consistency with professional standards and best practices are established, clearly articulated, disseminated, kept current, and consistently applied.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

“TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE The Smithsonian provides accurate and comprehensive information about its finances, operations, and activities to the public, Congress, and other stakeholders and responds in a timely manner to reasonable requests for information. We engage in open and reliable communication between and among the Board of Regents, management, and other stakeholders to support informed decision making.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

 “INCLUSIVENESS AND DIVERSITY The Smithsonian values and promotes inclusiveness and diversity in all of its activities, including employment practices, board and volunteer recruitment, and programs. The Smithsonian is enriched and its effectiveness enhanced when the Smithsonian community and the constituents we serve are composed of diverse individuals with varied backgrounds, experience, and points of view. “Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

 “IMPLEMENTATION While the Board of Regents retains the ultimate responsibility for requiring and overseeing compliance with this Statement of Values and Code of Ethics, each Regent, employee, volunteer, and other member of the Smithsonian community to whom it applies has a personal responsibility to comply with this Statement. The Secretary will ensure that the Statement is widely disseminated to Regents, staff, volunteers, advisory board members, and other members of the Smithsonian community, as well as to the public and interested stakeholders. The Secretary will ensure that appropriate policies and directives providing necessary guidance are in place and kept current. The Secretary, in consultation with the General Counsel, will establish an internal Ethics Advisory Board to provide advice to the Secretary and Board of Regents on compliance with this Statement of Values and Code of Ethics.” Smithsonian Statement Of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

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

 

THE PARTIES

 

Plaintiff ‘pro se’ Julian Marcus Raven is a citizen of Elmira, New York and a professional artist.  Mr. Raven is married with three children. Mr. Raven is the artist who painted the Donald Trump portrait/painting ‘Unafraid and Unashamed’ in the summer of 2015 about which this case is regarding.

 

Mrs. Kim Sajet, individually. The Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery Director and Mr./Dr. Richard Kurin, individually, Smithsonian Acting Provost.

 

NATURE OF ACTION AGAINST NAMED FEDERAL OFFICIALS MRS. KIM SAJET, DIRECTOR & MR./DR. RICHARD KURIN,  SMITHSONIAN ACTING PROVOST

 

This is a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages according Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against Mrs. Kim Sajet, Director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery, acting in her individual capacity for counts 1 + 2.

 

This is a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages according Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) against Mr. Richard Kurin, Smithsonian Acting Provost acting in his individual capacity for count 2.

 

Count 1. 1st Amendment political free speech violations and viewpoint discrimination.

 

 A first Amendment political free speech ‘Bivens Action’ will be considered a new context and a new cause of action.  But since there are no ‘special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.’ ” (Carlson, supra, at 18.) Plaintiff’s claims will demonstrate the appropriate use of Bivens as the remedy for plaintiff’s deprivations.

 

In Ziglar v Abasi, the Supreme Court said ‘The proper test for determining whether a claim arises in a new Bivens context is as follows;

“If the case is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court, then the context is new.

Meaningful differences may include, e.g.,

the rank of the officers involved;(High Ranking – Davis v. Passman. added)

the constitutional right at issue; (Fundamental Constitutional right. added.)

the extent of judicial guidance for the official conduct; (Abundance of judicial guidance. added.)

the risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches; (No risk, simple matter of settled law. added.)

or the presence of potential special factors not considered in previous Bivens cases.(Meaningful special factors not counseling hesitation. added.)

…Respondents’ detention policy claims bear little resemblance to the three Bivens claims the Court has approved in previous cases.( Bivens, Davis, and Carlson )” Ziglar v. Abbasi 582 US ___ (2017)

49. It is obvious in Ziglar v. Abassi why a Bivens action was not granted and counseled hesitation.  Plaintiff’s case presents itself in complete contrast, resembling the ‘characteristics’ of the three approved ‘contexts’ for a Bivens action, Bivens, Davis and Carlson.  Thus a new 1st Amendment free speech cause of action is appropriate.

 

‘Special Factors’ in Mr. Raven’s case do not ‘counsel hesitation’ but martial the powers of the Court to intervene as the only remedy Mr. Raven has to relief from the deprivations he has suffered having exhausted all other remedies. Punitive damages and a jury trial are both permitted under a Biven’s action, which is part of the remedy plaintiff seeks.

 

Count 2. 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution ‘due process of law’ and ‘equal protection’ violations

“No person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.”

 

A ‘Bivens action’ claiming 5th Amendment ‘due process’ violations fits perfectly under one of  the three already approved Supreme Court causes for permissible actions.

 

 “A cause of action and damages remedy can be implied directly under the Constitution when the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated. Cf. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388; Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478. Pp. 442 U. S. 233-249.

(a) The equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause confers on petitioner a federal constitutional right to be free from … (In this case, arbitrary deprivations of the ‘due process of law’ through egregious procedural violations, arbitrary unconstitutional government decision making, deprivations of rights of official, of record, written responses regarding ‘notice and hearing’, Deprivation of the right to appeal and to be heard and deprivations of liberty and property. Parentheses added)Pp. 442 U. S. 234-235.

(b) The term "cause of action," as used in this case, refers to whether a plaintiff is a member of a class of litigants that may, as a matter of law, appropriately invoke the power of the court. Since petitioner rests her claim directly on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, claiming that her rights under that Amendment have been violated and that she has no effective means other than the judiciary to vindicate these rights, she is an appropriate party to invoke the District Court's general federal question jurisdiction to seek relief, and she therefore has a cause of action under the Fifth Amendment.” Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)

Liberty & Property Interests in Plaintiff’s Claims

 

 “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

"Liberty" and "property" are broad and majestic terms. They are among the "[g]reat [constitutional] concepts . . . purposely left to gather meaning from experience. . . . [T]hey relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged." For that reason, the Court has fully and finally rejected the wooden distinction between "rights" and "privileges" that once seemed to govern the applicability of procedural due process rights. The Court has also made clear that the property interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money. By the same token, the Court has required due process protection for deprivations of liberty beyond the sort of formal constraints imposed by the criminal process. “BOARD OF REGENTS v. ROTH, 408 U.S. 564

"While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment], the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 . In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed. ““BOARD OF REGENTS v. ROTH, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

 

 “…Certain attributes of "property" interests protected by procedural due process emerge from these decisions. To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be arbitrarily undermined. It is a purpose of the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an opportunity for a person to vindicate those claims.” BOARD OF REGENTS v. ROTH, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

 

Plaintiff’s participation or rights of ‘property’ in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery extends further and deeper than if the institution were ‘simply’ a national establishment to which citizens would have a constitutional protected participatory right, that being the very reason for its existence.  Participation in the Smithsonian is unique because the institution is a unique composition of trust and government. The Smithsonian is a ‘gift’ in trust to the American people, administered by Congress as trustee through the Board of Regents also trustees.

Congress created compound rights of participation for both trust beneficiaries and citizens protected and all times and by all means by the Smithsonian Act of Congress and the Smithsonian charter, rules, procedures, standards, code of ethics and regulations enshrouded by and established upon at all times the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

Mr. Raven had the ‘property’ right to apply to the Smithsonian as citizen but more importantly as ‘trust’ beneficiary. A ‘prima facie’ example of Smithsonian participation is in the Smithsonian Act “SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the author or proprietor of any book, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, for which a copy-right shall be secured under the existing acts of Congress, or those which shall hereafter be enacted respecting copy-rights, shall, within three months from the publication of said book, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, deliver, or cause to be delivered, one copy of the same to the Librarian of the Smithsonian institution, and one copy to the Librarian of Congress Library, for the use of the said Libraries.” This clause is not even an option, suggestion or invitation, it is a command to participate, ‘Within three months’…‘deliver, or cause to be delivered’ is imperative!

 

Granted portrait acceptance is a procedurally controlled participation, the spirit behind the clause demonstrates the inextricable relationship between the trust and the beneficiary’s participation, thus creating a clear beneficiary ‘property’ interest, thus a constitutionally protected right!

 

One is left with a question, ‘from where did the Smithsonian Institution acquire its collections?’, if not primarily from its inception by the participation, contributions, and donations etc. of individual private citizen trust beneficiaries.

 

Mr. Raven had the right to participate in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery application procedure according to established rules, procedures and standards as both a trust beneficiary and citizen, which constitutes a ‘property’ right.

Mr. Raven had the right to expect fair and legal ‘due process of law’ proceedings from the government institution.

Mr. Raven had the right to expect a fair and professional consideration of his fine art application according to Smithsonian standards, rules and procedures.

Mr. Raven had the right to expect ‘equal protection’ of his rights under the law.

Mr. Raven had the right to be able to exercise his Constitutionally protected political free speech rights in a limited public forum, run by a government instrumentality.

Mr. Raven had the right to hear the truth from Smithsonian government employees.

Mr. Raven had the right to be treated fairly and respectfully by federal employees.

Mr. Raven had the right to be free from mental anguish, frustration, anger, the constant feeling of having one’s rights violated by government officials, discouragement, depression as a result of arbitrary federal employee’s behavior.

Mr. Raven had the right to participate in his portion, which constitutes ‘property’ of the will and trust of Mr. James Smithson as a ‘trust’ beneficiary as a Citizen of the United States of American, to which Mr. Smithson bequeathed his entire property.

Mr. Raven had the right to appeal.

Mr. Raven had the right to an appeal process.

Mr. Raven had the right to be heard in an appeal hearing.

 

Qualified Immunity

 

Mrs. Kim Sajet’s actions constituted clear violations of the 1st  & 5th Amendments to the United States Constitution.  These actions may invoke an initial attempt at a ‘qualified immunity’ defense, but her actions clearly fulfill the test Government Officials actions must meet in order to puncture the veil of a ‘qualified immunity’ defense. “Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right? This must be the initial inquiry.” ( Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).)

 

“To be held liable under Bivens, the defendant must have participated personally in the alleged wrongdoing; liability cannot be premised upon a theory of vicarious liability or respondeat superior. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens . . . suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."); accord Cameron v.

Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1993).” Anderson v Gates Civil Action No. 12-1243 (JDB)

 

 

“…To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). The Supreme Court in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009), modified the Saucier approach such that lower courts may use their discretion to decide which of the two prongs to address first. Accord Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093.” Anderson v Gates Civil Action No. 12-1243 (JDB)”

 

1. “…that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right.”

2. “…that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation…”

Anderson v Gates Civil Action No. 12-1243 (JDB)”

 

Smithsonian Employee Duty

 

“The Smithsonian Institution is a public trust whose mission is the increase and diffusion of knowledge …the fiduciary responsibility …We are accountable to the general public… We recognize that the public interest is paramount… maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, professionalism, and loyalty to the Institution… take care to avoid conduct… compromise the integrity of or public confidence… preserve the public trust… an expectation of ethical and professional conduct in all of our activities… apply to the Institution collectively and to all members… includes Regents, staff… must be mindful that it is a public trust… on 2 behalf of the American public… marked by openness… robust communication… Effective transparency… Each member… with honesty, integrity, openness, accountability… that values respect, fairness, and integrity… responsible for being aware of and complying… All Smithsonian activities… compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and international conventions… All Smithsonian activities will be conducted in accordance with established policies, directives, and procedures… compliance with legal and ethical requirements…. high standard of ethics and accountability…. ensure compliance… consistency…. are established, disseminated, kept current, and consistently applied at all levels of the organization… the highest public trust… prudent and responsible… documentation…. ensures that legal requirements are observed and compliance is documented… that accuracy and intellectual integrity…We acknowledge and address diverse values, opinions,… consistently applied… The Smithsonian values and promotes inclusiveness and diversity in all of its activities… and points of view….” Smithsonian Statement of Values and Code of Ethics, 2007

 

Mrs. Sajet, a ‘Covered Executive’ at the Smithsonian Institution was clearly briefed on the Director’s legal responsibilities under Federal Law, Federal Statues of Ethical Conduct by the Smithsonian Office Of General Counsel at the outset of the Director’s tenure at the Smithsonian Institution.

““Covered Executives,” for purposes of this directive, includes but is not limited to the Secretary of the Smithsonian, all direct reports to the Secretary, and all Unit Directors with broad decision-making authority within the Institution. All individuals whose positions are designated as Covered Executive are notified of such at the time they either receive their offer of employment or transfer to a new position within the Smithsonian that is designated as a Covered Executive. All Covered Executives must contact the General Counsel to be briefed on their responsibilities under these Standards of Conduct within thirty (30) days of hire or assumption of a Covered Executive position. A list of current Covered Executives is updated annually and available on the OGC Prism website.” Smithsonian Standards of Conduct https://www.si.edu/content/ogc/sd103.pdf

 

Director Sajet was also specifically directed by the Smithsonian Institution to be self informed and thus personally responsible, thus personally liable in the areas of applicable Federal law so as to avoid prosecution under Federal law. Legal counselors are available to give advice about how the Director’s ‘planned’ conduct may have violated Federal law.  If the Director of the National Portrait Gallery had of followed procedure, the Director would have consulted with the legal counselors as to the Director’s planned actions against plaintiff.  Since it is obvious Director Sajet did not, then the Director ignored Smithsonian legal procedural directives specifically relating to Federal law issues and acted willfully, deliberately, intentionally, recklessly with complete disregard to the procedural ‘due process of law’ at the National Portrait Gallery.  “No person shall be deprived of …liberty and property without the due process of law” 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

“Apart from disciplinary or remedial action by the Smithsonian arising from a violation of these standards, civil and criminal penalties may be imposed for violation of federal statutes, to the extent that such statutes are applicable to federal or trust fund employees. It is the responsibility of Smithsonian employees to be aware of applicable statutes and to ensure that their conduct does not violate federal laws…” Ethics Counselors are available to advise employees about how their conduct, or planned activities, might violate federal statutes.”  Smithsonian Institution Standards of Conduct https://www.si.edu/content/ogc/sd103.pdf

 

Thus, Mrs. Sajet acted with full knowledge of the law unless the Director ignored and disobeyed specific Smithsonian Institution directives to be educated, informed and personally responsible concerning such matters, if and when in doubt, to seek legal counsel ‘before’ taking action. ‘Due process’ was ignored and violated no matter which path was chosen by the Director since the Smithsonian Institution’s process of art consideration was said to be a ‘rigorous selection ‘process’ made by the ‘curators and directors’[1].  And remember this claim is against the ‘Director’ of a National Institution.  If the Director does not know how to act, then who is left? Any claims of ignorance by Director Sajet are a confession of willful disobedience, willful ignorance, willful failure to follow established protocols and procedures, irresponsibility, negligence and the dereliction of duty.

 

Any actions conducted under these conditions are nothing but a reckless disregard for the Will of James Smithson “…an institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.”, the Smithsonian Act of Congress of 1846, the ‘Programme Of Organization’ and the most recent 2007 Smithsonian ‘Statement of Values and Code of Ethics’ and the 1st and 5th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

 

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 political free speech civil rights and 5th Amendment ‘due process’ rights or that the Director was acting recklessly with complete indifference & disregard to plaintiff’s 1st & 5th 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.

 

“To allow this action will make publick officers more careful to observe the constitution of cities and boroughs, and not to be so partial as they commonly are in all elections, which is indeed a great and growing mischief, and tends to the prejudice of the peace of the nation...”

Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 1

BACKGROUND OF EVENTS

 

On July 9th, 2015 Mr. Raven 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 8x16 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.

 

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!

 

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!

 

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’.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 bypassed said request.  Plaintiff had the feeling that the Director wanted to give him a ‘piece of her mind.’

 

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

 

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

 

DIRECTOR KIM SAJET OBJECTIONS:

 

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”

“For the reasons given by the Court, I agree that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment forbids what respondents have done here.”

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

 

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.

Smithsonian FAQ[2] “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

 

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 about her first objection about the scale of the painting indicated that Director Sajet clearly knew, that her words and actions were inconsistent with Smithsonian standards and procedures, since in the midst of her objecting, she dramatically made an ‘about face’ turn, demonstrating her opinion to be arbitrary, since the reality in the Smithsonian spoke to the contrary.  This self-incriminating and guilty behavior at the outset of the conversation established the arbitrary context for the rest of the conversation, that later compelled plaintiff to investigate, and subsequently discover the reason for Director Sajet’s change of mind. The evidence discovered, proves the initial objection was absolutely partial and biased against plaintiff and his Trump Portrait. 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.

 

What was Director Sajet hiding? For an objection about the ‘scale’ of the painting 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

 

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) -celebrates-2013-presidential‐inauguration-exhibits-and-programs (Ex. VVV)

 

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

 

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.

 

‘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)

 

The spirit of the Smithson Will, that of ‘increase’ in the Smithsonian Institution at its founding regarding ‘scale’ contradicts this arbitrary opinion and can be seen in the Smithsonian Act;

“SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That, so soon as the board of regents shall have selected the said site, they shall cause to be erected a suitable building, of plain and durable materials and structure, without unnecessary ornament, and of sufficient size, and with suitable rooms or halls, for the reception and arrangement, upon a liberal scale, of objects of natural history, including a geological and mineralogical cabinet; also a chemical laboratory, a library, a gallery of art,…” Smithsonian Act of Congress, 1846

 

5th Amendment ‘Due process of law’ violation.

 

“NOT FROM LIFE”

 

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.

5th Amendment ‘Due Process of Law’

 

98. 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‐gallery

 

In actuality, out of the four Donald Trump ‘portraits’ the NPG owns, only one of the four was actually created from life. In reality 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 fabricated 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.

 

 

 

“TOO PRO‐TRUMP” VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION

 

 “For the reasons given by the Court, I agree that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment forbids what respondents have done here.”

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

 

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

 

In the 2013 ‘Celebration’ Inauguration of President Obama, the NPG hung TWO huge 6x8 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 §

1st Amendment Political free speech violation Viewpoint Discrimination

5th Amendment ‘Due process’ and ‘Equal protection’ Discrimination

 

“TOO POLITICAL”-  VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION

“For the reasons given by the Court, I agree that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment forbids what respondents have done here.” Justice Scalia

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

 

The Director of the National Portrait Gallery from the outset of the phone call mentioned, in a condescending tone the imagery of the eagle and the American flag.  Director Sajet’s tone implied 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 had a fully developed background.  Furthermore, the Lansdowne portrait is layered in symbolism like the Trump Portrait, the Lansdowne portrait is not just a portrait of the face of the subject. Director Sajet excused the Washington portrait whilst objecting to the Trump portrait since the Washington portrait 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 that 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.

 

Again, to be noted, Director Sajet’s opinion was devoid of Smithsonian Institution standards. The Director said 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 and The Statue of Liberty are some of the American symbols used in the contextual narrative of the Trump Portrait and these are too political to be shown in the National Portrait Gallery? 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 IN
A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM

 

Objecting on political grounds to the content of the Trump Painting, as being ‘too political’ is an objection by a Federal Government employee and senior Director of a Federal Institution to political speech that the Director deems ‘politically incorrect’ or unacceptable. If the NPG had an official standard forbidding all political content, portraits and political campaign posters etc. that could be reason to reject the painting. But by allowing, accepting, celebrating and showing the political Obama ‘HOPE’ poster in 2009, 2013 and by accepting the 2008 Hillary Clinton political campaign poster, the National Portrait Gallery created a legally binding political campaign art precedent and display ‘right’ for all political speech in a limited public forum.  If the government gallery allows some political art from certain viewpoints it must allow all political art from all political viewpoints or none at all.  The government cannot discriminate!

 

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 presidential 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

 

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’.

 

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 limited public 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)

 

“In his 58-page decision, (District Judge Royce C.added)  Lamberth “lauds the District for opening its lampposts to political messages” but writes that “once the District opens up public property to political speech, it has a responsibility to be fair, even and precise in its regulations.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-news/judge-finds-districts-rules-for-hanging-political-posters-unconstitutional/2012/11/29/c4b8942e-3a60-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html?utm_term=.67bde0bb70c9

 

“To comply with the First Amendment, a government regulation in a public forum must meet three criteria. It must be content-neutral; it must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and it must leave open ample alternatives for communication. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197 (1992) (citing United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983)).”  

First Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…’

5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ‘ Due process of law’ clause,  ‘equal protection’ discrimination.

 

“For the reasons given by the Court, I agree that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment forbids what respondents have done here.” Justice Scalia

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

 

 “Invariably, the Court has felt obliged to condemn systems in which the exercise of such authority was not bounded by precise and clear standards.(Smithsonian NPG standards are clear…added) The reasoning has been, simply, that the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great where officials have

unbridled discretion over a forum's use. Our distaste for censorship -- reflecting the natural

 

distaste of a free people -- is deep-written in our law.”

SOUTHEASTERN PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. CONRAD ET AL. 420 U.S. 546

 

“NO GOOD”

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

 

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…’

“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

 

It is clear that this type of authoritarian 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.  Plaintiff’s 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.

 

Telling plaintiff that the work is ‘no good’, when that opinion is based on a tiny image on a computer screen and not an examination of the original, 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 the Trump Cartoon ‘Portrait’ which is part of the NPG portrait collection! http://www.unafraid-­‐and-­‐unashamed.com/smithsonian-­‐trump-­‐ portraits.html

5th Amendment ‘Due process of law…’

 

 

 

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS OF PARTICIPATION & APPLICATION ‘PROCESS’

 

Once Congress appointed Co‐Trustees, the Board Of Regents, it 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) 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

The 1963 commission clearly said “Thus, the standards for accepting portraits varied considerably from other galleries.”  http://siarchives.si.edu/history/national-­‐portrait

­gallery Please see The Smithsonian NPG Bias Chart for a list of standards. http://www.unafraid-and-unashamed.com/smithsonian‐bias‐chart.html

 

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 the 5th Amendment ‘Due process of law’ clause and violated the Federal and Smithsonian standards of Ethical Conduct.


[1] Interestingly as of 9.26.2017 the answer to the Smithsonian FAQs “I would like to donate an object to the Smithsonian Institution?” has been changed.  It no longer contains the words ‘rigorous ‘selection’ process’ , ‘truly fills a gap’, ‘by the museums curators and directors…’ https://www.si.edu/FAQs

[2] Please note since this suit was filed, this specific question and answer has been edited. Key words have been removed such as ‘process’, ‘curators and directors’. Please visit link and see for your self. 

Smithsonian Lawsuit Update- Radio Interview Frankly Speaking AM1230 With Frank Acomb

Posted by Julian Raven on Monday, September 25, 2017

Click to read in PDF format.  Also expand screen for full page view.

The Trump Painting By Artist Julian Raven from New York.  The Trump Painting was on display at the 2016 RNC in Cleveland New York. The Trump Portrait was seen at the New York Delegation's hotel in the center of Cleveland.  The Trump painting was also part of a 5 second video show at the RNC convention.  The video by Trump Executive Lynne Patton featured the image of the Trump Painting on the side of the Trump Truck.

The Trump Painting and The Trump Presidential Portrait webpage.  The Trump Painting has been on a prophetic journey since its creation back in the summer of 2015. Trump Painting, Trump Portrait and Trump Presidential Painting.  Historic painting by artist Julian Raven, the Trump Painting has been seen across the country.  The Trump Painting portrays Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America.  You may ask where is The Trump Painting located?  The Trump Portrait is presently on show at the artist's studio in Elmira, New York. A copy of The Trump Painting hangs proudly in the new Trump Campaign headquarters located in Trump Tower in New York City. 

 

The Trump Painting & Portrait, 'Unafraid And Unashamed'The Trump Painting & Portrait, 'Unafraid And Unashamed' Product description: The Trump Painting And Trump Portrait 'Unafraid and Unashamed' By Julian Raven
Julian RavenArtist607-215-8711 email: Julian Raven Website: