Posted on 01/06/2020 4:18:41 AM PST by Kaslin
The Smithsonian Institution, has stood as an emblem of American knowledge and values since its establishment. Its vast spaces have been used to advance technological progress, social change and, in the realm of the arts, what is good and beautiful.
In 2015, my painting 'Unafraid and Unashamed' was submitted to the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery for inclusion in an exhibit on American political art. The scoffing response from the museum’s director, Kim Sajet, was that it was “too big”, “too political”, “too pro-Trump” and finally "no good."
The abrupt, arbitrary dismissal of an artist’s work may cause hurt feelings. However, the denial of one’s right to free speech aroused far greater passion and a demand for a remedy.
What is the entity status of the Smithsonian Institution? This is the unanswered question of federal Law, that my current petition for certiorari, at the Supreme Court, (prepared without the assistance of counsel), is seeking to be answered.
Three federal courts, The US Court of Federal Claims, The US District Court for the District of Columbia, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, through which my case, [Julian Marcus Raven v. The Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery (USA)] has already navigated, have unsurprisingly been confused about which laws apply to the Smithsonian. They have consequentially denied an ordinary citizen’s free speech rights.
This is nothing new. In 1971, William W. Warner, assistant Smithsonian secretary, wrote a speech for then Smithsonian Chancellor of the Board of Regents, Chief Justice Warren Burger, in which he asked this remarkable question:
"But just what is the Smithsonian Institution? Why does it look and operate the way it does? It most certainly is not a government agency, nor a component of the executive branch of the federal government. It is not a part of the Congress or the Judiciary...Moreover, the Smithsonian Institution, as a trust instrumentality, continues to confuse members of Congress, the courts, and the executive branch..."
If all three branches of the federal government are confused as to the answer to this question, We the People, to whom the Smithsonian Institution belongs, must petition to know the answer.
The mystery of entity confusion caused Amtrak, another federal enigma, to require the Supreme Court to answer the identical question in the case of LeBron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Similarly, a political artist, Michael LeBron, a Democrat, was denied the display of political art on the Spectacular screen at Penn Station in New York City, claiming his 1st Amendment free speech rights were violated.
In LeBron, Amtrak argued that it was absolutely no part of the federal government, in order to skirt its constitutional constraints, denying LeBron his 1st Amendment political free speech rights. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 majority decision, written by Justice Scalia, including Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Thomas, ruled differently. They tied Amtrak to the Constitution because a government-appointed Board of Directors controls Amtrak, thus making Amtrak a federal creature.
The entity or agency question in my case however, is regarding the Smithsonian’s private trust status, which is merely run by the federal government. This status has been mysteriously denied by the District and Appellate Courts, denying me of my 1st and 5th Amendment free speech, due process and equal protection rights. By denying the Smithsonian trust status, the court also exonerated the Smithsonian officials of egregious breaches of fiduciary trust.
Private bequests, like the Will of James Smithson, entrusted to state or federal governments to run as fiduciary trustees, remain private institutions, which are merely run by the government, specifically in the role trustee. The beneficiaries of the Smithson trust, We the People, should be protected against government abuses, by both the Common Law of Trusts, and the U.S. Constitution.
My case is not complex. However, it is facing a complete, institutional distortion, of the entity, or agency status, of the Smithsonian Institution, by the Department of Justice and the Federal Courts. These federal actors have declared that the private institution, established for the ‘increase and diffusion of knowledge’ by the will of a private citizen, actually speaks for and as the federal government, exercising ‘government speech’ powers derived directly from the electorate. Consequentially, a participating, citizen-artist, is owed no fiduciary duties from the trustees, and the artist has no expressive political free speech, or any other constitutional rights!
Judge Trevor McFadden, from the District Court, declared that the actions of Kim Sajet, the Director of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, were ‘insulting, partisan and odious’, yet at the same time, (since no laws apply to the Smithsonian), her actions, by default, were declared to be acceptable, fiduciary trustee conduct.
Never has a case been made against the Smithsonian Institution, that has reached all the way up to the Supreme Court! It is time for the US Supreme Court to answer this question;
Just what is the Smithsonian Institution?
Julian Raven is a commercial artist. His petition for Certiorari is pending before the Supreme Court.
I’m dubious. My big-time lib SIL volunteers there. She a scientist. Take away what you want from that.
Hope we win.
The museum was staging an exhibition on American political art. Before rendering a judgment, one would need to know a bit about the complete exhibition. What period did it cover? What genres were included? Was the overall selection reasonably balanced in terms of political orientation? How did the work in question fit visually and thematically with the rest? If the museum’s selection was hopelessly biased, there is room for complaint. But the author hasn’t made that case. He is simply complaining that his particular piece wasn’t selected.
I am uncertain of the ability of employees at the Smithsonian to do anything to contribute to Free Speech rights or any other rights.
Their handling of the Enola Gay back in 1995 told me all I needed to know about how they would handle anything.
So he’s basically saying that the Constitution requires that the Smithsonian has to display his painting. Lol.
If he wins, and the fiduciary trustees CAN’T decide which art is acceptable, then 100% of all art submitted must be displayed. Goofy.
Despite the good concept, the painting itself isn’t that good (IMHO).
anyone read The Smithsonian Magazine lately? I was a 30+ year subscriber. After 2016, the Magazine went left of the NY Times. It is has become an unreadable leftist rag.
I have not paid for the Smithsonian for over 2 years, but it shows up in my mailbox every month. It goes directly into the trash.
It’s stupid to think that the Smithsonian cannot reject a submission.
But since the Smithsonian is creating exhibits that carry credibility based on being managed by the govt (tax dollars), it’s appropriate to ask who is in control of the narrative.
The Smithsonian started going down hill in the early 1980s.
The Natural History museum had a sabre-toothed tiger in the entrance, posed in attack-mode, and was very popular with visitors mugging up with it for pictures.
Some wimpy curator thought it was “disrespectful” to the cat, so it was either removed or made inaccessible for posing with it.
From the article: Judge Trevor McFadden, from the District Court, declared that the actions of Kim Sajet, the Director of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, were ‘insulting, partisan and odious’,
I think they can reject anything with “good” reason but not for political bias. (the question becomes, what is “good reason”?)
It’s as corrupt as the FBI, DOJ, IRS, ATF, SCOTUS, CONGRESS, CIA, NSA, IRS, DNC.
Which means they can reject anything they want, until (perhaps) someone complains.
Who gets to decide who is sane enough to own firearms?
Any progressive can tell you who should be making the decisions - it's obvious, right?
The Smithsonian Inst. is NOT a protecter of free speech; nor a bastion for truth. Our nation is spotted all over the eastern area with evidences of the giants who once roamed the earth, a la Genesis chapter 6. In the early days of westward expansion, every time a new site with evidence of giant activity was found, Smithsonian swooped in, gathered up all relics, etc., and denied they ever existed. Smithsonian is anti-Bible, anti-Creation, pro-evolution, and destroys any evidence that might endanger the satanist line. Google NEPHALIM.
I stopped being a member and donor years ago when it became apparent that they had been captured by the left.
Funny that they are afraid of offending people yet quote Bill Cosby on the wall above the quilt exhibit in the article photo.
The remedy to make him whole has already been done as part of the DOJ response, a review of his work on the merits, not dismissal based upon bias. He's even got the court outright declaring the bias. He wants an additional bite of the apple to include individual/institutional penalties, and I don't see how he gets there as he never availed himself of all the other methods of seeking the review which was denied.
I'm sorry he's wasted years of his life working on this; I take issue that his piece is of any significance, never seen it before today, never heard of it, while that's not entirely germane, it sure would have helped his case in my eyes. The campaign obviously takes little notice of it; if they wanted to push the piece being included they would have provided legal help.
At the end of the day, the DOJ’s rather exhaustive response makes the most explicit point; due to the piece's size in relation to the exhibition and the other submissions, it would have altered the impression of the significance of the piece. I'm not sure if it was in the appellate reply or the original DOJ response where it was suggested a different format/size could have been submitted, and ultimately, the artist never provided how the huge submission would be delivered for the exhibition with the supposition being that the partner gallery would ‘handle it.’
I don't even see anything in the original trial court's finding that's outlandish; the remedy that the plaintiff sought is impossible without a time machine, is a matter of discretion for the curators, and the original artwork as submitted in a billboard type format is excessive. He never showed how his piece was significant or impacting on the campaign which might overrule some of the other considerations.
He did get the court to call the rejection due to bias, but failed to make any prayers for relief the court could possibly accede to.
The really weird part is I can still see this drift into the court's docket if for no other reason than to settle the question as to the Smithsonian's status. But pretty much everything else is going to earn a denial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.