Judiciary at a Crossroads: Raven V Trump-Roberts-Smithsonian-US Congress & Raven V NYSDEC - Hochul

WASHINGTON - Dec. 19, 2025 - PRLog -- Pro se constitutional litigant and artist Julian Raven is awaiting pivotal rulings in three high-stakes lawsuits that challenge powerful institutional entities and individuals, including the President of the United States, Chief Justice John Roberts, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Governor Hochul and members of the New York judiciary. The outcomes of these legal battles promise to shed critical light on allegations of judicial bias, agency overreach, and systemic failures in upholding constitutional protections.

Each case is entangled with administrative and procedural irregularities that Raven has brought to the attention of judicial oversight bodies. In his federal lawsuit against the DEC, Raven filed a request for intervention by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes, citing a minute order issued by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart that granted the New York Attorney General's request before Raven had even been served—an action that favored the state without due process. In parallel, Raven filed a judicial complaint in the New York Supreme Court case against Judge Christopher Baker, alleging consistent deference to DEC while denying all plaintiff motions.

In the federal Smithsonian case, Raven takes on the highest echelons of cultural and constitutional authority, including President Trump and Chief Justice Roberts. The case hinges on breaches of fiduciary duty within the Smithsonian Trust and retaliatory exclusion based on viewpoint discrimination. A crucial twist involves Judge Trevor McFadden, who in 2018 made critical observations about Director Kim Sajet's partisanship—the same conduct now at the center of Raven's claims. McFadden must now reconcile his previous judicial ruling with current arguments from the Department of Justice, which Raven asserts mischaracterize his relief as monetary to invoke sovereign immunity.

Further compounding these controversies, Raven uncovered a conflict of interest between Judge Anne Nardacci and DEC Commissioner Amanda Lefton, with Nardacci's husband appearing publicly with Lefton just months before the judge's assignment to the case. A boilerplate dismissal threat in early December from Judge Nardacci has gone dormant following Raven's letter to Chief Judge Brenda Tanner requesting an investigation.

Meanwhile, in the NY State Supreme Court, Raven's December 5 motion and January 6 OSC hearing hang in limbo pending Administrative Judge Eugene Faughnan's decision on his request to relocate the case due to judicial misconduct.

Across all proceedings, Raven has filed detailed administrative complaints, flagging patterns of conduct that reflect not only legal irregularities but a deeper systemic trend: courts reflexively siding with prestigious state actors while obstructing valid constitutional and fiduciary claims from ordinary citizens.

As 2025 draws to a close, these unresolved judicial responses have created a legal cliffhanger. Will the courts continue deferring to institutional power? Or will they uphold their oath to the Constitution?
http://www.smithsoninstitution.com
http://www.714baldwinstreet.com