“Who are you, other than a figment of your own imagination…?”
Peter Jacobsen, speaks about Ontario Conservative Leader’s Hudak’s statements for which Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne says, she’ll take him to court for libel and defamation.
“… making false and extremely damaging statements and I think that is where the line is drawn between free expression in our society and defamation. I am a tremendous advocate of free expression, but I think that where it can do a lot of harm to the whole concept of free expression is if we’re going to allow people, with impunity, to make statements that are blatantly untrue, and they won’t back them up…
“There is nothing to substantiate these (Hudak’s – ed: substitute “Sinclair’s”) statements, that we know of.” (CBC, The Current, April 1, 2014)
Jacobsen might much more correctly have been talking about Ritchie Sinclair, and his totally wild, false, and unsubstantiated claims of fakes, that have been completely rejected by numerous judges, and top forensic scientists.
But Sinclair’s wild rantings, have, by one estimate, been destructive of Norval Morrisseau’s art valuations to the tune of some $100 million, and have cut a destructive swath through the art valuations of all First Nations artists.
Four judges (Lederer, Godfrey, Martial, and Sanderson) have all rejected Sinclair’s claims as unproven and without evidence to back him up.
Six judges have impugned, or “rejected” outright, in specifics, the integrity, the expertise, the expert reports, & the claims of Sinclair and Robinson (Mogan 1996, Lederer 2008, Godfrey 2011, Martial 2013, Lacavera 2013, & Sanderson 2013)
In 2008 The Hon Justice Thomas R Lederer, after reading Sinclair’s Defence against a multi-dealer lawsuit, wrote tellingly, in what would always be a familiar refrain, in court after court:
“The defendant in this case (Sinclair) says he will defend the action by claiming the defamatory statements are true. No demonstration of the basis for this defence has been produced to this point.”
And more even more damningly:
“The (Sinclair) website suggests that a large number of the pictures to which it refers are ‘stolen, forgeries, counterfeit or otherwise inauthentic.’
“ It is difficult to believe that the defendant has had an opportunity to examine all the images referred to on the website against the list of factors to which he refers. Moreover, the website does not demonstrate or discuss any specific evidence demonstrating the failure of any image to satisfy all of these factors. There is nothing but the bald statement that they are frauds or counterfeits.” (The Hon Justice Thomas R Lederer, Dec. 4, 2008) (ed: my underlining)
Indeed, nothing would ever change, over the next six years. to alter the telling accusation and validity of Justice Lederer’s damning final sentence.
Three judges (Godfrey, Martial, Sanderson) in cases dealing with allegations of specific fakes, have ruled totally and entirely against the claims of Sinclair and Robinson, and totally in favour of ruling the paintings they slanged, as being, to the contrary, authentic, in the absolute.
Hundreds of pages of court transcripts document numerous lies, and acts of perjury by Sinclair, a habit for which he was deliberately cited before the Hon Madam Justice Mary Anne Sanderson in Ontario Superior Court, on Dec. 6, 2013. In her judgment, she concurred when it was brought to her attention by, Brian Shiller, the winning lawyer in both the Martial trial and the subsequent Sanderson Appeal.
“I may suggest to you that the trial judge (ed: Deputy Judge Paul J Martial) could have easily condemned Mr. Sinclair as a liar, and chose not to… And I put it to you, as to your shaking your head that you’ve read this part of the evidence. It was crystal clear in my submission that Mr. Sinclair was caught in a lie.” (Trial & Appeal Winning Defence Lawyer Brian Shiller, during the Appeal before The Hon Madam Justice Mary Anne Sanderson, Ontario Superior Court, from personal notes: taken Dec. 6, 2013)
“The trial judge was entitled to reject the evidence of Sinclair and to conclude it was unsupported and unreliable. Sinclair could produce no documentary evidence to support his assertion that a well organized forgery ring painted the works auctioned by Khan Auctions.” (item 18, Ontario Superior Court 2013 ONSC 7801 Divisional Court File no. 209/13, the Judgment by the Hon Madam Justice Mary Anne Sanderson, Dec 17, 2013)
Exposed: the Secret Life of an Indian Imposter
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” WC Fields