Saturday, September 14, 2019

Fifty-seventh Anniversary of Norval Morrisseau's First Exibition at Jack Pollock's Gallery

-
Kevin Hearn Vs. Joseph B. McLeod and Maslak McLeod Gallery Inc.
/Court File No. CV-12-455650/

"SPIRIT ENERGY OF MOTHER EARTH HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE A FORGED OR FAKE MORRISEAU. FROM THE LAW'S POINT OF VIEW, IT IS THEREFORE A REAL NORVAL MORRISSEAU PAINTING."

~ Justice Edward M. Morgan, May 24, 2018



-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-









"...Norval, with his incredible ability with the formal problems of art (colour-design-space) and his commitment to the world of his people, the great Ojibway, give one the sense of power that only genius provides... It is sufficient to say that in the history of Canadian Painting, few have, and will remain giants. Norval shall."

Jack Pollock (1930-1992)

-
-


Note: Norval Morrisseau's first public exhibition was held at Jack Pollock's gallery (The Pollock Gallery) on September 14, 1962 in Toronto, Ontario. 'Time' magazine (Canadian edition) commented about the event that "Few ex­hibits in Canadian art history have touched off a greater stir."




© CBC Digital Archives





June Callwood (1924-2007), ©  1966 Norman James/Toronto Star


"If any of you happens to see an injustice, you are no longer a spectator, you are a participant, and you have an obligation to do something."*

June Callwood, C.C., O.Ont., LL.D.

-



* - That didn't mean you had to intervene, she explained, but you couldn't pretend that you weren't a part of what was happening in front of you.


 Note:  June Callwood who was a guest host on CBC's 'Close-Up' interviewed Norval Morrisseau at 'The Pollock Gallery' in Toronto at his sell-out exhibition, on September 14, 1962. Norval Morrisseau was explaining to her the medicine dream he had that encouraged him to start seriously painting the legends of the Great Ojibway.-

-

Thursday, September 12, 2019

COMING SOON: "Tenth anniversary of the important Supreme Court of Canada decision: Defence of Responsible Communication (Grant v. Torstar Corp.)"


>>> The same Defence filed by the Blog Master of this platform:
Kinsman Robinson Galleries vs. Ugo Matulic /CV-10-417123/

SLAPP SUIT WON BY THE DEFENDANT!

~ On December 22, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada has released a very significant decision which affects all media news reporting companies and bloggers in Canada















"Freedom of expression is guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is essential to the functioning of our democracy, to seeking the truth in diverse fields of inquiry, and to our capacity for self-expression and individual realization."


>>> In the recent decision of Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 (“Grant”) and its companion case, Quan v. Cusson, 2009 SCC 62 (“Quan”), the Supreme Court of Canada sought to strike a more appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation by creating the new defence of “responsible communication on matters of public interest” (the “Defence”). The Defence allows defendants in libel cases where statements of fact are at issue to evade liability if they can show that they acted responsibly in reporting on a matter of public interest, even if the statements of fact are untrue. Prior to the decision, defendants could not avoid liability in these cases unless they showed that the statement was substantially true (the defence of justification), or that the statement was made in a protected context (the defence of privilege).

Importantly, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed and considered at some length ‘new media’ and the ability for ‘instant’ and easy publishing on blogs or webpage’s by ‘public interest’ groups. Thus, this Defence does not just apply to newspapers, but to bloggers, special interest and social networking groups:

[T]he traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets. I agree … that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”. [Grant, at para. 96]

[Emphasis added]

Although the extension of the Defence to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media is an important recognition of the growing relevance and legitimacy of these groups, the Defence is – at least currently – unlikely to protect most members of these groups. To gain the protection of the Defence, the defendant must establish two elements: (1) that the publication is on a matter of public interest; and (2) that the publication was responsible, in that the defendant was diligent in trying to verify the allegation. The trial judge will determine the first element. If the judge concludes that the first element is met, the jury will determine the second element, having regard to several factors:

• the seriousness of the allegation;
• the public importance of the matter;
• the urgency of the matter;
• the status and reliability of the source;
• whether the plaintiff’s side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
• whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
• whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth; and
• any other relevant circumstances


In assessing whether the defendant was diligent, the jury will be guided by “established journalistic standards”:

[M]any actions now concern blog postings and other online media which are potentially both more ephemeral and more ubiquitous than traditional print media. While established journalistic standards provide a useful guide by which to evaluate the conduct of journalists and non-journalists alike, the applicable standards will necessarily evolve to keep pace with the norms of new communications media. [Grant, at para. 97]

[Emphasis added]

This indicates that the same journalistic standard must be applied to every defendant irrespective of whether or not they are journalists. As a result, the Defence will likely not apply to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media unless they perform the due diligence expected of a journalist in the circumstances.

The problem for many members of these groups is that they are generally not guided by established journalistic norms. Although they may approach online publishing in good faith and with a level of diligence reasonably expected of non-journalists, this level of diligence is unlikely to meet the required journalistic standard. For example, although journalists will generally make a point of seeking the plaintiff’s side of the story and speaking directly to witnesses and experts, non-journalist bloggers – who are generally unpaid for their efforts – will rarely have the time, resources, training, or willingness to do so. As one American commentator argues,

Blogging and journalism clearly differ. The former ‘implies that a disinterested third party is reporting facts fairly’ (Andrews, 2003: 64). Blogs are ‘unedited, unabashedly opinionated, sporadic and personal’ (Palser, 2002) – in many ways, the antithesis of traditional US journalism. Some say that is the best thing about them. ‘Journalism is done a certain way, by a certain kind of people,’ but bloggers “are oblivious to such traditions” (Welsh, 2003). [Jane B. Singer, “The political j-blogger: ‘normalizing’ a new media form to fit old norms” (2005) 6(2) Journalism 173 at 176]

[Emphasis added]

Even if a non-journalist blogger or user of other online media does engage in the level of diligence required to meet the journalistic standard, they may unknowingly fail to do so in a way that produces a strong record of evidence from which a court can conclude that they did act diligently. As a result, many of these defendants may simply not have access to the protection of the Defence.

Nonetheless, Grant does not foreclose the possibility that courts will apply a different diligence standard to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media as the “norms of new communications media” evolve. Although the court isn’t clear on this point, these groups might be able to gain the protection of the Defence in future cases even if they haven’t performed their diligence in the same way that a traditional journalist would have:

While established journalistic standards provide a useful guide by which to evaluate the conduct of journalists and non-journalists alike, the applicable standards will necessarily evolve to keep pace with the norms of new communications media. [Grant, at para. 97]

[Emphasis added]

Even if the standard applicable to these groups does not shift to allow them to gain the protection of the Defence, juries – who have been tasked with the responsibility for assessing whether the defendant was diligent – may be sympathetic to these groups and apply the journalistic standard less rigidly.

In summary, although the Defence extends to non-journalist bloggers and users of other online media, many members of these groups are unlikely to be protected by the Defence because it requires that they performed the due diligence expected of a journalist. Nonetheless, the law does not necessarily foreclose the possibility that courts will apply a different diligence standard to these groups in future cases, or that juries will less rigidly apply the existing journalistic standard

-



Source: Defamation Law Blog
--------------/Defamation news and legal analysis with a Canadian focus/


What media has to say?-
thestar.com: Supreme Court backs press in major libel ruling,
The Canadian National Newspaper Exopolitics Headlines:
Canada’s Supreme Court establishes new libel defence.

~ For additional information click HERE.-
-

~ As per decision of the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (December 22, 2009), journalists and other media, including bloggers, will be protected from lawsuits if they diligently try to verify information on matters that are in the public interest (click HERE for more information and/or check NORVAL MORRISSEAU BLOG's DISCLAIMER @ the bottom of this page ). ~

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Remembering Michael Moniz's 54th Birthday Anniversay

--
Kevin Hearn Vs. Joseph B. McLeod and Maslak McLeod Gallery Inc. /Court File No. CV-12-455650/

"SPIRIT ENERGY OF MOTHER EARTH HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE A FORGED OR FAKE MORRISEAU. FROM THE LAW'S POINT OF VIEW, IT IS THEREFORE A REAL NORVAL MORRISSEAU PAINTING."-

~ Justice Edward M. Morgan, May 24, 2018
-


Michael Moniz (September 11, 1965 - April 13, 2013)





















Hi to all,

I appreciate all of you visiting the NORVAL MORRISSEAU BLOG. It is proving to be an exciting success as I have always anticipated it would be. The subject is dynamic and evolving to say the least. I wish to thank all the contributors for encouraging me to continue with this monumental project which is dedicated entirely to protecting the integrity of Norval Morrisseau's art and the preservation of his artistic legacy.

I am using this opportunity to express a sadness and special thank you to my very good friend Michael Moniz of Brampton, Ontario who departed to the spirit world on April 13, 2013. I will sorely miss our friendship and his relentless and unwavering dedication and assistance that he has provided me since this blog's inception on November 12th, 2007.

Allow me again to introduce myself to those who don't know me.

I was born in Split, Croatia. As a child I saw, and continue to see, the Indians of North America as members of an outstanding race. My favourite childhood memory was the time when 'Winnetou' movies were filmed in Croatia (then part of Yugoslavia). As a memento from that time were countless memories and a photograph with my brother and I in front of Indian totem pole in my hometown of Omiš, Croatia after the filming of one of the 'Winnetou' movies based on novels by the best-selling German author of all time - Karl May.

When I emigrated to Canada my aim was to become a true Canadian and contribute to the advancement of this outstanding country. I also wanted to advance the cause of the First Nations Citizens. The best way I could do this appeared through advancing the cause of native art. Researching the background of Norval Morrisseau and other native artists and their lives has shown the adversity these artists had to overcome to become recognized. Some wonderful people emerged through this research, as did the hardships the art goddess imposed on many of these talented artists.

The subject of my passion is Norval Morrisseau's art. He was one of the very few artists who started a completely new art movement: the Woodland/Anishnaabe School of Art, and has been dubbed the Father of Canadian Aboriginal Art. My extensive knowledge and research along with my personal collection which I have amassed over the years are what I draw my knowledge base from. It seems like almost every day I find a new and fantastical correlation within this man's work. It is never ending. The scope and depth of Morrisseau's visions throughout his lifetime have left an impact on my soul that I cannot describe in words. "Perhaps I should paint as Morrisseau did to express feelings otherwise would not be explicable within my vocabulary?" His Art Work is my passion...

... The artistic genius of Norval Morrisseau was best described by Jack Pollock (1930-1992) who wrote: "...Norval, with his incredible ability with the formal problems of art (colour-design-space) and his commitment to the world of his people, the great Ojibway, give one the sense of power that only genius provides... It is sufficient to say that in the history of Canadian Painting, few have, and will remain giants. Norval shall."

Thank you for your continuing support.


Ugo Matulić a.k.a. Spirit Walker
ugo.matulic@norvalmorrisseau.com

> For the purposes of this blog I would like to be referred to as Spirit Walker. Miigwetch!


-


ABOUT MICHAEL MONIZ (1965-2013):

"He Humbled a Canadian Media Giant…
Exposed a Top Arts Journalist’s Professional Disgrace…

And saved a fine Morrisseau BDP* from the trash heap of history.

Alone against the “Establishment” this Canadian Morrisseau collector took on the biggest media giant in Canada (CTV Globemedia) and won a stunning moral, legal, and cultural victory, on March 10, 2009, on behalf of Canada, and all Canadians, and the artistic heritage of Norval Morrisseau.

The lonely battle he fought, at great personal expense, and distress, over two years, served to expose for all Canadians, how – from the very beginning - serial journalistic incompetence continues to be the main tool harnessed by those who attack the painting legacy of Norval Morrisseau, and in the process – together – grievously undermine and devalue the legitimate Aboriginal cultural heritage of Canada."


Source (text): theMorrisseauHoaxExposedBlog.com                   
"Great Canadian Cultural Heritage Hero #1" &
Moniz v CTVglobemedia              


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MICHAEL MONIZ SPEAKS:

Michael Moniz vs. CTV Globemedia Publishing Inc. /Court action CV-07-1776 SR/
























"Father and Son", 30"x30", © 1977 Norval Morrisseau
/Click on image to Enlarge/



This matter has been financially compensated between Michael Moniz (plaintiff) vs. (defendents) CTV Globemedia Publishing Inc. for damages rendered to the plaintiff. Action No. CV-07-1776 SR in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Brampton, Ontario THREE YEARS AGO TODAY (March 10th, 2009).

"I am very pleased about the POSITIVE compensatory outcome of this case in my favour. Now that it has been settled between myself and the CTV Globemedia Publishing Inc. I will sell the art of Norval Morrisseau with continued superior confidence to collectors World Wide."

Thank you,

Michael Moniz, March 10th, 2012"
























"Father and Son", 30"x30", © 1977 Norval Morrisseau;~ Analysis of the inscription on the reverse side of canvas by Mr. Brian Lindblom -
Forensic Document Examiner /Click on image to enlarge/
 







 


























"Father and Son", 30"x30", © 1977 Norval Morrisseau /Professional appraisal work done by Maslak Mcleod Gallery in Toronto Ontario by Mr. Joseph McLeod (1928-2017) who was as of February 12th, 2007 a member of Art Dealers Association of Canada (ADAC); at time of passing a member of The Canadian association of Personal Property Appraisers (CPA) - /Click on image to enlarge/


This painting which was involved in court action Michael Moniz Vs CTV Globemedia Publishing Inc. CV-07-1776 SR come with professional appraisal work done by Mr. Joseph McLeod (1928-2017) of Maslak Mcleod Gallery in Toronto Ontario. Mr. McLeod was a member of the Art Dealers Association of Canada (ADAC); and at the time of his passing a member of The Canadian Association of Personal Property Appraisers (CPPA). Further forensic work was conducted and found proof positive for the signature painted in black paint with a DB technique by Mr. Brian Lindblom (retired, 2017) of 'The Document Examination Consultants Inc.' (click HERE for more information).

~ This genuine Norval Morrisseau painting was acquired by Mr. Michael Moniz (Brampton, Ontario) from Randy Potter Estate Auctions in Port Hope, Ontario.

~ For CV-07-1776 SR background history click HERE.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CARMEN ROBERTSON WRITES:

Contrary to the factual, Ms. Carmen Robertson promoted the opposite in the 'University of Manitoba Press' publication, 2016:

"In early 2007 Val Ross of the Globe and Mail penned the story that uncovered how fake Morrisseau paintings were being sold online, and the paper printed a screen shot of a fake Morrisseau on eBay.ca site to prove it. Milrad called it a 'new wrinkle in an old scam,' explaining that the NMHS and Gabe Vadas had instigated litigation to ensure that eBay would not sell fakes in the future. This endeavour, however, according to the report, cost the estate about $70,000 a year. This was a start of a series of countless litigations over authenticity of Morrisseau paintings.""


~ Carmen Robertson*, "MYTHOLOGIZING NORVAL MORRISSEAU," Page 171 [ISBN: 978-088755-810-8]

* Member of the defunct Norval Morrisseau Heritage Society (NMHS)

Notes: NMHS and Gabe Vadas never "instigated litigation to ensure that eBay would not sell fakes in the future" as the same genuine Norval Morrisseau paintings that they call fakes continued to sell on eBay up to the present day [click HERE (2009), HERE (2010), HERE (2011),  HERE (2013), HERE (2014)...]

Also, Gabe Vadas was the one involved in the first ever litigation over the authenticity over Morrisseau paintings and not Mr. Michael Moniz. Mr. Vadas lost case with Mr. Joseph Otavnik of Oshawa, Ontario while Norval Morrisseau was still alive. 

'Otavnik Vs Vadas SC 07-51428-00' which was filed on April 16th, 2007 (more than six months prior Norval Morrisseau's passsing into the spirit world) even when Mr. Otavnik requested, via Gabor Vadas, for Norval Morrisseau to evaluate the paintings in question - requests ignored by Gabor Vadas!? The court case which Gabor Vadas lost and paid $11, 000 for damages to Joseph Otavnik (Ref.: Exhibit No. 24).

Luckily for Carmen Robertson that Michael Moniz is not alive as he would have, as Mr. Joseph Otavnik did, seeked damages for Defamation under commons law and Slander of Title under the Ontario Libel and Slander Act R.S.O. 1990 c.12. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BLOG MASTER'S COMMENT:


Failing to prove its false allegations, the Globe and Mail conceded and agreed to pay an out-of-court settlement to late Michael Moniz. In revenge, and in obvious shame, The Globe and Mail enforced a non-disclosure silencer on the successful plaintiff to cover up its journalistic incompetence and wrongful accusations.

Despite its violation of journalistic ethics with the non-disclosure clause forced on the plaintiff, for its part, The Globe and Mail took no steps to remove copies of the offending and defamatory article off the internet, where it remained in use for three years after the case was over, where continued to wrongly damage the heritage of Norval Morrisseau with its acknowledged false claims.

Shame on The Globe and Mail for using the power and wealth of its big corporation to cover up its sloppy journalism, and for failing to publish a retraction
* as prominent as its original defamatory article.


Click HERE for e-mail communication between Michael Moniz's and Globe and Mail's legal counsels regarding this newspaper article (also shown).

Also, click HERE to read this post with Mr. Moniz's 2008 commentary to Val Ross' defamatory article (2007).


* - Legal Counsel for Globe and Mail was Peter M. Jacobsen of Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP; Legal Counsel for Michael Moniz was Ethan Rogers of Rogers & Company Professional Corporation


-


~ As per decision of the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (December 22, 2009), journalists and other media, including bloggers, will be protected from lawsuits if they diligently try to verify information on matters that are in the public interest (click HERE for more information and/or check NORVAL MORRISSEAU BLOG's DISCLAIMER @ the bottom of this page ). ~ -