Analysis and Conclusions

David Voss seems to be the author of all five documents, including the sworn affidavit attributed to his father. Each document is an attempt to pacify associates and provide them with a reasonable narrative to explain the suspect provenance of the paintings coming through Voss. Common throughout the documents are rants aimed at those who have questioned the legitimacy of the Voss-sourced paintings.

Voss claims that after serving in the army, raising a child, and having navigated a failed business venture, he embarked on a new venture to buy, sell, and trade Morrisseau art in the mid-90s. That would would have made him about 23 years old. The business men he met assisted Voss in moving his Morrisseaus. For example they consigned and sold over 50 paintings through Don Robinson’s gallery that secretly came through him. Also in the mid-90s, Voss tells us he decided to sell his own collection of 500 paintings, although he seems young to have amassed such a collection, especially in light of these experiences.

Ringleader Gary Lamont has been convicted of producing forgeries beginning in 2002, yet fake Morrisseaus have been marketed since at least 1992. Voss had a role to play in the forgery scheme, but it was Lamont, 10 years his elder, who knew Norval, knew his artwork and situation, and had previously used the donation scheme they would employ. In the past, Lamont sidestepped prison by getting others to confess to his drug crimes. Is it possible that Voss was never more than a paid ploy meant to misdirect the curious?

Is it possible that David Voss, as a young man in the late ’80s and early ’90s, found himself in a position similar to that of Scott Dove, Dallas Thompson, Benji Morrisseau, and many others? Easy prey, drugged and threatened into bending to Gary Lamont’s will. Did this student eventually become the teacher?

Is it possible that the first wave of Morrisseau forgeries that appeared beginning in 1992 were actually early Voss forgeries, consigned to Don Robinson’s gallery through an intermediary distributor like Anthony Martinenko. Is it possible that the original dry-brush signature is a David Voss creation? I watched Lamont’s Dec. 4 2023 hearing where he confessed to being a forger, yet twice denied that he was the person who signed them. Why would he do that?

Joe McLeod testified that Voss offered him paintings at $1000 each, but he was cash poor with a topped-up inventory so he didn’t buy any. McLeod couldn’t handle the volume of work being offered so he suggested Voss meet with Potter who, at the time, operated Kahn Auctions in Pickering, Ontario. If Gary Lamont had no part in Potter’s massive transactions with Voss, then perhaps Lamont was just another opportunist forging his own ring in the silence that mutual blackmail affords.

When it comes to the issue of David Voss, speculation has always been rife. For years, I thought he was fictitious until the RCMP told me otherwise. Perhaps in many respects, he is a fictional character, like the wizard of Oz—a fraud propped up to sell a fish story.

These photos, with captions below, were originally published by Lamont on his website. They were taken on the same day in 1985 at Morrisseau’s studio on Richmond Street in Toronto, as their clothing confirms. Lamont claims that the first photo is from 1980 and the last one from the late 1980s to fabricate a false history.

“The defendant was referred to by counsel in their submissions both as Ritchie Sinclair and Stardreamer. The defendant describes himself as the “artistic apprentice” of Norval Morrisseau. Consistent with the allusion to which I have already referred, the defendant expresses a concern that: “Many of the works that are attributed to Norval Morrisseau however, are in fact counterfeit, and have been produced solely for the purposes of capitalizing off of Norval Morrisseau’s fame and market value”. It seems, from the record, that the defendant has made it his personal concern to identify, uncover, make known and even publicize works said to be those of Norval Morrisseau which he believes are false. In his affidavit, he says: I have no interest in identifying counterfeit Morrisseau paintings other than to perform a public service and to assist in protecting the legacy of one of Canada’s foremost artists.”

Lederer J.