Doug Misicko and Cevin Soling on the record in court depositions and testimony
The following are the available court depositions of Doug Misicko (a.k.a. “Doug Mesner”, “Lucien Greaves”) and Cevin Soling (“Calvin Soling”, “Malcolm Jarry”) in matters concerning “The Satanic Temple”, which alternatively means the for-profit United Federation of Churches, LLC, dba The Satanic Temple; also Reason Alliance Ltd., their nonprofit sometimes called “Reason Alliance / TST”; also Soling’s for-profit 64 Bridge LLC dba Salem Art Gallery; but also their tax-exempt church The Satanic Temple, Inc.; all of these and possibly others share The Satanic Temple’s headquarters 64 Bridge St., Salem, Mass.
While many explanations are given on social media for what relationship these organizations have with each other and why it’s all actually very normal, when forced to address follow-up questions under oath, the answers given by the two owners of those organizations (and others) associated with The Satanic Temple are evasive, befuddled, and sometimes admit to outright illegality such as perjury.
While TST has threatened to and actually sued journalists and other critics in response for talking about issues such as this, the admissions of the owners themselves on the record are damning.
Table of contents
The Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale
(Case No. 2:18-cv-00621-PHX-DGC)
- Sept. 24, 2019: Rule 30(B)(6) Telephonic Deposition Of The Satanic Temple Inc. by and through Douglas Alexander Misicko
[jump]- Sept. 24, 2019: Rule 30(B)(6) Telephonic Deposition Of United Federation of Churches by and through Douglas Alexander Misicko
[jump]- Jan. 23, 2020: Transcript of Bench Trial Day 2, Cross-Examination of Douglas Alexander Misicko
[jump]Cave v. Thurston
(Case 4:18-cv-00342-KGB)
- March 10, 2020: Exhibit 7 – Satanic Temple Deposition Excerpts — Document #124, Attachment #7
[jump]- March 10, 2020: Exhibit 2 – relevant portions of TST’s deposition — Document #189, Attachment #2
[jump]
- March 10, 2020: Exhibit 26 Satanic Temple 30(b)(6) Deposition — Document #260, Attachment #41
[jump]- March 11, 2020: Exhibit 32 Misicko Deposition — Document #260, Attachment #50
[jump]Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of
(Case No. 0:19-cv-01122)
- Exhibit(s) 1-42, and 44-45 — Document #84, Attachment #1
The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation
(Case No. 5:22-cv-05033)
- Feb. 2, 2023: Exhibit 1 — Document #58, Attachment #1 – Videotaped Deposition of “Malcolm Jarry”
[jump]- Feb 3. 2023: Exhibit 2 — Document #58, Attachment #2 – Videotaped Deposition of Corporated Representatiove for The Satanic Temple, Inc. Lucien Greaves (Pseudonym)
[jump]- Feb. 2-3, 2023: Exhibit Combined Exhibits — Document #47, Attachment #1 – (Pages 1-14 of 145 relevant)
[jump]
The Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale
(Case No. 2:18-cv-00621-PHX-DGC )
Rule 30(B)(6) Telephonic Deposition Of The Satanic Temple Inc. by and through Douglas Alexander Misicko
Sept. 24, 2019
Q. You are identified as the president of The Satanic Temple Inc. in Exhibit 19?
A. Correct.
Q. And you are identified as the clerk of The Satanic Temple Inc. in Exhibit 19. True?
A. Correct. Yeah.
Q. And reading the actual text of that text box, it looks like you held a — the — the president and the clerk held a meeting on May 23, 2019 and that by a vote of one decided to amend the articles of incorporation. Is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And if you’d turn to Exhibit 2 — or — I’m sorry. Strike that. If you’d turn to page 2 of Exhibit 19.
A. Is it this one we’re on?
Q. Same — Same tab —
A. All right.
Q. — page 2. That you, as the clerk, signed Exhibit 19 under penalties of perjury. Is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Also as the president, slash, vice president. True?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you stated under penalty of perjury when you filed Exhibit 19 with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that at least two thirds of the members, slash, directors — I’m reading from that text box again on page 1 — legally qualified to vote in the meetings of the corporation made the decision to amend the articles of organization. True?
A. Yes. Correct.
Q. And so mathematically you would agree with me that only one member could comprise at least two thirds of the legally qualified members. True?
A. Well, now, this was a discussion between me and Malcolm Jarry. We’re the only two. So I mean we both knew we were doing it and both approved it with the lawyer we were working with. So that would be 100 percent really.
Q. Okay. Well, the — the document that you filed, Exhibit 19, with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under penalty of perjury states that there was a vote of one. Correct?
A. Yeah. I would just say that’s incorrect. I mean Malcolm was not unaware of this — of — that this process was taking place. We were both in agreement so that was — I’m not sure why it’s filed that way.
Q. Okay. So there were — as of May 24, 2019 there were two members or directors qualified to vote in meetings of the corporation?
A. Correct. Yeah.
Q. Were — Have there ever been more than two directors of the corporation identified in matters?
A. There have not.
…
Q. You mentioned an LLC, and we’ll — we’ll talk about the — the relationship between — The LLC you referred to is the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. Yeah. Right.
Q. Has The Satanic Temple Inc. ever owned a membership interest in the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. A membership interest?
Q. Yes.
A. I’m not — I’m not sure how that would work. I mean this is kind of set up through lawyers so — and we asked them what the best process is, and I’m not necessarily aware of the terminology or the — the — I mean that said, I’m still the best person to answer to this, but I — I didn’t necessarily do the — you know, do the template set-up and that kind of thing so I —
Q. Sure.
…
Q. Okay. So one of the questions that I have about the relationship, if any exists, is whether The Satanic Temple Inc. owns a membership interest in the United Federation of Churches — the United Federation of Churches LLC now.
A. I — I don’t — I don’t know what that means.
Q. Okay. Do you know that a limited liability company has members?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if The Satanic Temple Inc. is a member of the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. I know I’m a — I’m a member, and — and Malcolm Jarry is the managing member. I know that’s the terminology for that.
Q. Okay. So then using, I suppose, the — using elimination, then, if Malcolm Jarry is a member and you are a member, do you know if there are any other members of the United Federation of Churches of LL — United Federation of Churches LLC now?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So if you are a member, Malcolm Jarry is a member and there are no other members, then one can deduce that The Satanic Temple Inc. is not a member of the United Federation of Churches LLC. Correct?
A. Yeah. As a discrete entity it’s not listed as a — as a member on the documentation.
Q. Has the United Federation of Churches LLC ever been managed by anyone other than — Strike that. Has the United Federation of Churches LLC ever been managed by The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. Managed by Satanic Temple Inc. I don’t think that that’s the arrangement laid out —
Q. Okay.
A. — but —
Q. Did The Satanic Temple Inc., after it was formed in 2017, fail to file annual reports on a yearly basis?
A. The Satanic Temple Inc.?
Q. Yes.
A. No, not that I’m — not that I’m aware of.
Q. If you’d turn to tab 20. Tab 20, Exhibit 20, is a filing with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth that has a filing date of May 24, 2019 at 1:24 PM, if you look up at the top, the very top of the page, very top centered.
A. Oh, here (indicating)?
Q. Yeah.
A. Okay. Yeah. Gotcha.
Q. But it is an annual report that states it is a — it is a filing for November 1 of 2017. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know why the — And — And we know that as of November 1, 2017 The Satanic Temple Inc. didn’t exist yet as a corporate entity. Correct?
A. When did it say it existed?
Q. If you could turn back to Exhibit 18. November 14, 2017.
A. I’m sorry. Which exhibit?
Q. 18.
A. 18. Okay.
(Pause.)
A. So November 14 — Okay. Yeah.
…
Q. So do you know why Exhibit 20 was filed in May 2019 reflecting an annual report for a filing of November 1, 2017?
A. No, I do not know.
Q. Exhibit 20 identifies you as the president, treasurer, clerk and director. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Does not identify anyone named Malcolm Jarry as an officer or director of the corporation?
A. I’m sorry. Which — Which exhibit?
Q. Exhibit 20.
A. 20.
(Pause.)
A. Correct.
Q. Has Malcolm Jarry ever been a director or officer of The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. Yes. It was my understanding that he was actually supposed to be listed as treasurer and director, and I’m president and clerk. That’s — I — I don’t know why this paperwork says otherwise, but that was the understanding I had with him.
Q. If you’d turn to Exhibit 21, please, Exhibit 21 also has a filing date of May 24, 2019. Do you see that at the top?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 21 is an annual report that has a filing for November 1, 2018 identified in Exhibit 21. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And again you are identified as the only officer and director of the corporation. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 22. Exhibit 22 is a certificate of change of address of the resident agent where you as the resident agent identify a new address for the resident agent. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Has there ever been a resident agent of The Satanic Temple Inc. other than you?
A I don’t believe so. It would have — only would — The only other person would have been Malcolm.
Q. Has the corporate charter for the corporation identified in Exhibits 18 through 22, The Satanic Temple Inc., ever been suspended?
A. Has not.
Q Has the corporate charter for The Satanic Temple Inc. ever been revoked?
A. It has not.
Q. If you could go back to Exhibit 18, please.
(Pause.)
Q. Do you see how there are centered headings, “Article I,” “Article II,” Article Roman numeral III —
A. Yes.
Q. — article Roman — I want you to please read the text under Article Roman numeral III to yourself and just let me know when you’re done.
(Pause.)
A. Okay.
Q. Does The Satanic Temple Inc. have by-laws?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you reviewed the by-laws of The Satanic Temple Inc. to prepare for this deposition?
A. Briefly, yes.
Q. Do the by-laws authorize anyone other than the officers and directors of The Satanic Temple Inc. to act as its agent in corporate matters?
A. It — It — The by-laws authorize us to authorize other people to perform duties on our behalf.
Q. All right. And when you say “us,” are you referring to yourself and Malcolm Jarry?
A. Correct.
Q. Is Malcolm Jarry a fake name too?
A. It’s a pseudonym.
Q. For Steven Soling?
A. Cevin.
Q. For Cevin Soling?
A. Yeah, with a C.
Q. Oh. I didn’t know that was Cevin. Okay.
A. Yeah, that wasn’t artistic license. His parents actually gave that —
Q. Yeah, my mom couldn’t spell either. I got one T in my name. Do you know if The Satanic Temple Inc. owns any shares in any other corporation?
A. To my knowledge, absolutely not.
…
Q. Have any copyrights been assigned to The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. Copyrights, yes.
Q. What copyrights?
A. We copyright our logo, our name, and I don’t know what other proprietary stuff that comes from our licensing agreements with the various chapters.
Q. Has The Satanic Temple Inc. been granted an assignment as — or — Strike that — been granted a license as a licensee of any federally registered trademarks?
A. A licensee of federally registered trademarks. I believe so. I kind of lose the — the distinction sometimes between copyright and trademark. I know we’re in the middle of trademarking my own pseudonym, Lucien Greaves, because there’s imposter accounts that show up trying to pull illuminati scams from Nigeria in my name, get people to give them money for membership or whatever. And I don’t know — That’s the one trademark effort I know is in process for sure. As for other trademark, I’m not — I’m not certain.
Q. If you’d turn to tab 23, please.
A. 23. Okay.
Q. Tab 23, Exhibit 23, is a print-out of a search of the United States Patent & Trademark Office Trademark Electronic Search System, and it reflects an application for the word mark “The Satanic Temple.” Do you see under the owner who the applicant is?
A. “Owner/applicant United Federation of Churches LLC DBA The Satanic Temple Inc. Limited Liability Company.”
Q. Yeah. So the applicant for the trademark in Exhibit 23 appears to be the United Federation of Churches LLC. And this application was filed, if you look at the filing date, it was, either coincidentally or not, filed on May 24, 2019, the same date as all those annual reports that we looked at previously. Do you see that under “Filing Date”?
A. Sorry. Oh, okay. Yeah, I see that.
Q. And the attorney of record is Brendan Durrigan?
A. Correct. Yeah. Brendan.
Q. And the application that is reflected in Exhibit 23 for The Satanic Temple reflects a date of first use in commerce of — if you look under “Goods and Services” here (indicating) —
A. Yes.
Q. — of January 1, 2013. That’s 20130101. Do you see that?
A. Yeah. Yes.
Q. That date, January 1, 2013, predated the existence of The Satanic Temple Inc. as a corporate entity. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. If you’d turn to Exhibit 24.
A. Wait. We’re on — Oh, no. That’s the next one.
Q. Tab 24, Exhibit 24.
A. Yeah.
Q. Exhibit 24 is for the word and design mark “TST” plus design, and this is actually a registered trademark with a registration date of October 30, 2018, if you look at the last line.
A. I see it.
Q. You see that?
A. Yeah.
Q. And if you turn to the next page of Exhibit 24 —
A. Yes.
Q. — at the very top line is the owner identified the registrant as the United Federation of Churches Limited Liability Company. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So one of my questions is has The Satanic Temple Inc. as a corporate entity ever received a license to use the trademark reflected in Exhibit
24?
A. Well, I don’t — I don’t know if formally on paper we did that. I mean I am — I am the best person to answer these questions. However — I mean I’m the best representative of this company to answer these questions, but this is Brendan’s work, you know, and — and how this was done by him wasn’t necessarily something I kept close watch over. So it’s kind of — kind of new to me as we go through it.
…
Q. And again if you look at the owner identified in Exhibit 25 of that trademark for those goods and services, the owner is identified as United Federation of Churches LLC DBA The Satanic Temple. Do you see that?
A. I see that, yes.
Q. With the 519 Somerville Avenue address, number 288. Correct?
A. Oh, correct. Yes.
Q. Has the trademark identified in Exhibit 25 ever been licensed for use to The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. That I do not know.
Q. Have the trademarks identified in Exhibits 24 and 25 ever been assigned to The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. Not that I’m aware of.
(Pause.)
Q. Does The Satanic Temple Inc. currently own or operate any top level domain names for the use it — for Web sites?
A. What do you mean by “top level”?
Q. Top level domain level is a — is a domain name with an I can [phonetic] suffix like .com, .biz, .net. I’ll ask it a different way —
A. Okay.
Q. — to make it easier for you.
A. Sure. Sure.
Q. Does The Satanic Temple Inc., the corporation, own the Web site — Strike that. Does The Satanic Temple Inc., the corporation, own the domain name www.thesatanictemple.com?
A. To be honest, I don’t know who registered thesatanictemple.com. I just know we have that back-end access and for all intents and purposes own it and use it to conduct business.
Q. That domain name was registered prior to the existence of The Satanic Temple Inc. as a corporate entity. Correct?
A. That is correct. Yeah.
Q. And the Web site that is utilized through that domain name address has existed prior to the incorporation of The Satanic Temple Inc. Correct?
A. It — It in fact preceded my own involvement with it.
Q. Is there any written agreement through which the owner of thesatanic –www.satanictemple.com [sic] has conferred use of that domain name on The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. I have no written documentation, but I’m certain we could procure an affidavit.
Q. Is there any corporate relationship between the United Federation of Churches LLC and 3 The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. That’s difficult for me to — to answer because I — you know, I — I don’t know if there’s that kind of paperwork connection, but the — the fact of the matter is is we — we put these structures in place after the fact to — to formalize and support something that was already in operation. Right? So I don’t know if it was the best procedurally, but for all intents and purposes our activities are the same, were the same, whether they were — whether they were DBA United Federation of Churches or The Satanic Temple Inc. The Satanic Temple Inc. was somewhat necessitated by our recognition by the IRS as a — as a tax-exempt religious organization.
Q. The United Federation of Churches LLC is not a tax-exempt religious organization. Is that correct?
MR. KEZHAYA: I object.
MR. CLAUS: All right. I can ask him in the next deposition. That’s fine.
MR. KEZHAYA: Okay.
Q. Do you know if The Satanic Temple Inc. has any written agreements with the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. Not that I — Not that I know of. I don’t think there’s formal paperwork —
Q. Okay.
A. — elucidating that.
Q. Let — Let me ask it a different way. Do you know if there is any corporate relationship between the United Federation of Churches LLC and The Satanic Temple Inc.?
A. I’m not trying to play dumb here, but you’re going to have to explain to me what “corporate relationship” means in this —
Q. Well, I don’t, and I probably can’t. So — So it’s not — I’m not asking you to play dumb. I’m really asking you if you have knowledge. And if you don’t, then — then — then that’s the answer. Do you have knowledge of any corporate relationship between The Satanic Temple Inc. and any other entity?
A. Well, from my perspective they’re completely inter-related because they’re part of the — part of the paperwork process that formalized one continuous entity. Right? And it — And it consists of the same people. As far as documentation that might say, you know, we have an agreement between one and the other, I can’t name such documentation.
Q. Has The Satanic Temple Inc. ever attempted to gain recognition by the Internal Revenue Service of the United States for tax-exempt treatment?
A. The Satanic Temple Inc., my understanding is, is the formal — is just the formal corporate paperwork for the tax-exempt religious entity known as The Satanic Temple.
Q. And my question is has The Satanic Temple Inc. ever sought to extend that tax-exempt status to the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. No. No, not to my knowledge.
The Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale
(Case No. 2:18-cv-00621-PHX-DGC)
Rule 30(B)(6) Telephonic Deposition Of United Federation of Churches
by and through Douglas Alexander Misicko
Sept. 24, 2019
Q. Exhibit 11. Exhibit 11 is a limited liab — liability company annual report. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Filed on September 12, 2016. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Identifies a different manager of the LLC as Cevin Soling. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. If you turn to the second page of Exhibit 11, do you see the handwritten signature at the bottom of the page?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Do you recognize that signature?
A. I don’t.
Q. Do you recognize that signature to not be yours?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. Turn back to page 1 of Exhibit 11. The annual report is for the year 2015 and still identifies the general character of the business as “educational activities and all other lawful purposes.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you see anything in Exhibit 11 that specifically articulates a religious purpose to the limited liability company?
A. I do not.
Q. Exhibit 12, please.
A. Okay.
Q. This is a filing of an annual report for the limited liability company filed the same date, September 12, 2016. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. I’m going to ask you the same question that I asked about The Satanic Temple. Do you know if the United Federation of Churches LLC was ever suspended by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for failure to file an annual report on a timely manner?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if the charter for the United Federation of Churches LLC was ever revoked by the secretary of the commonwealth?
A. It has not been.
Q. Okay. So back to Exhibit 12, Exhibit 12 identifies you as the resident agent of the LLC. Correct?
…
Q. Has anyone other than you ever been identified as an agent of the limited liability company identified in Exhibit 12?
A. Would not Cevin Soling be considered identified as an agent from line 6 where it says “name and business address of each manager”?
Q. Mr. Soling is identified as the manager. I’m asking you under line 5 — Do you know that a limited liability company under Massachusetts law must identify a, quote, resident agent, end quote?
A. My awareness of this is only through this very paperwork.
Q. Okay. Do you know if anyone other than you has been identified as a resident agent of the limited liability company identified in Exhibit 12? And if you don’t know, that’s fine. Just tell me.
A. Well, I can say with almost certainty that nobody else has —
Q. Okay.
A. — but I will — I’ll offer the caveat that it would not — it would also not surprise me if there were other paperwork in which Cevin might be listed as a — as a resident agent —
Q. Okay.
A. — as well.
Q. And the annual report identified in Exhibit 12 is for the year 2016. True?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And the general character of the business identified in line 3 of Exhibit is the same as in the certificate of organization and the prior annual report, “educational activities and all other lawful purposes.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you see anything in Exhibit 12 that articulates a religious purpose to the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. I do not.
Q. And let’s look at that handwritten signature on page 2.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize that signature to not be your signature?
A. Correct. I recognize that signature to not be my own.
Q. Great. Turn to Exhibit 13, please.
A. Okay.
Q. Exhibit 13 is the annual report for the United Federation of Churches LLC filed on April 3, 2017. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Identifies you as the resident agent?
A. Correct.
Q. And identifies Mr. Soling as the manager. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q Identifies the general character of the business in the same manner as the previous filings, “educational activities and all other lawful purposes.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you see anything in Exhibit 13 that identifies a religious purpose to the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. I do not.
Q. And again, if you go to the second page, there is a handwritten signature. Do you recognize that signature?
A. Correct. I recognize that signature to not be my own.
Q. Great. Turn to Exhibit 13, please.
A. Okay.
Q. Exhibit 13 is the annual report for the United Federation of Churches LLC filed on April 3, 2017. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Identifies you as the resident agent?
A. Correct.
Q. And identifies Mr. Soling as the manager. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Identifies the general character of the business in the same manner as the previous filings, “educational activities and all other lawful purposes.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you see anything in Exhibit 13 that identifies a religious purpose to the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. I do not.
Q. And again, if you go to the second page, there is a handwritten signature. Do you recognize that signature?
A. I — I do not.
Q. Do you recognize that signature to not be yours?
A. I recognize that signature to not be my own.
Q. Great.(Pause.)
Q. If you’d turn to Exhibit 14 — We’ve entered the age of digital filings — Exhibit 14 is a restated certificate of organization. Do you see how —
(Mr. Claus indicated.)
A. I see that, yes.
Q Filed May 21, 2018?
A. It says two thousand — Oh, okay. This — Okay. The date at the top says — Oh, this is for the original filing of the original organization. It says February 4, 2014.
Q. Right. And if we —
A. Okay.
Q. — look back at Exhibit 10, we see that that is the date of the original filing, February 4, 2014.
A. Okay. And this is an annual filing in 2018?
Q. No. Exhibit 14 is a restated certificate of organization. Do you see that?
A. “Restated Certificate of Organization,” yes. Okay. I understand that.
Q. Filed in May of 2018. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And — Excuse me — it provides — if you go to page 2 of Exhibit 14, there’s a box that has the number 10 — Do you see box 10?
A. Correct. Yes.
Q. — that describes the amendments to be affected by the restated certificate. Just read it to yourself and let me know when you’re done.(Pause.)
A. Okay
Q. I’m going to ask you do you know if Massachusetts law — Do you see how it says that it’s signed under penalties of perjury this 21st day of May 2018?
A. Correct. I see that.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Soling has legally changed his name to Malcolm Jarry?
A. I do not know ––MR. KEZHAYA: Object as outside the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition notice.
Q. So do you know?
A. Well, should I — I —
Q. Yeah, you —MR. KEZHAYA: Oh. Yeah, go ahead and answer.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
A. I — I have no knowledge of him changing his name.
Q. Do you know if Massachusetts law — Strike that. Do you know how the execution and filing of organizational documents with the secretary of the commonwealth using a false name signed under penalty of perjury impacts the ability of that organization to continue to do business?MR. KEZHAYA: Same objection. Go ahead and answer.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
A. No, I do — I — I have no knowledge of
that.
Q. Do you know if making a false statement in a filing with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts impacts the ability of an organization to continue to do business?
A. I —
MR. KEZHAYA: Same objection. Go ahead and answer.
A. I — I — I do not — I do not know the — the letter of the law on this.
Q. Okay. Turn to tab 15, please. Tab 15 is a certificate of amendment for the United Federation of Churches LLC. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And identifies you in box 5 as the resident agent still. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. In box 6 it identifies two managers. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But those two managers are in fact the same person. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Have you ever notified — As a representative of and the resident agent for the United Federation of Churches LLC, have you ever notified the secretary of the commonwealth that any misleading statements were ever made in an organizational filing on behalf of the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. I have not.
Q. And in fact if you look at box 10 on the second page of Exhibit 15, the purpose of the amendment is specifically articulated to add a manager, slash, officer. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. But Mr. Soling was always, since the filing of the first annual report, a manager of the United Federation of Churches LLC. True?
A. I’m sorry. Can you say that again.
MR. CLAUS: Can you read it back, please. (Record read.)
A. I’m sorry. Yes. Correct.
Q. Tab 16. Tab 16, Exhibit 16, is an annual report of United Federation of Churches LLC. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And now changes the general character of the business and states that it engages in campaigns and provides services that promote reason and empathy and religious pluralism and sell merchandise to support these efforts. True?
A. Correct.
Q. Has the United Federation of Churches LLC ever sought tax-exempt status from the IRS?
A. To my knowledge, that was never — never the route we pursued that with.
Q. We can see, based upon Exhibit 16, that because it was filed in February of 2019 that the United Federation of Churches LLC has existed concurrently as a separate legal entity from The Satanic Temple Inc. True?
A. As a separate legal entity. Correct.
Q. And Exhibit 16 represents the first time that the United Federation of Churches LLC is described as having been organized to engage in any type of religious activity. True?
A. This is the first filing in which it explicitly states any religious function.…
Q. Exhibit 23 is a trademark application — application filed on May 24, 2019 for the trademark “The Satanic Temple.” Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. That identifies the applicant as the United Federation of Churches LLC. Do you see that?
A. Applicant — Yes, I see that.
Q. So do you know — And — And you may not know this — that when an application is filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office that a representation is made under penalty of perjury regarding who uses a mark in commerce and who uses a mark in interstate commerce?
MR. KEZHAYA: Object as outside of the 30(b)(6) notice. Go ahead and answer.
A. No, I’m not aware of the relevant legal 20 background on that.
Q. Okay. If you’d turn to just Exhibits 24 and 25, these are trademark registrations for the trademark “TST” and design and the word mark
“Satanic Temple” that reflects ownership of that registration by the United Federation of Churches LLC. Correct? You have to go to the next page for Exhibit 24.
A. Yes, I see that on there.
Q. And Exhibit 25, at the bottom of the first page, reflects the owner as the United Federation of Churches LLC.
A. Correct.
Q. Has the United Federation of Churches LLC ever assigned the trademark reflected in Exhibits 24 and 25 to any person or entity?
A. Assigned the trademark to any person or entity. Again, you know, I operate under –under just this operational understanding that I’m acting as The Satanic Temple. So when we do these kind of licensing agreements with chapters and other such entities, you know, I’m not thinking it in terms of distinguishing it from United Federation of Churches or — or The Satanic Temple Inc.
Q. Well, you just used the — the — the first person pronoun “I.” I just want to make sure I understand. You, Douglas Misicko, are not the owner of any of the trademarks reflected in Exhibits 23, 24 or 25. Correct?
A. Correct. But as — as a authoritative voice for the United Federation of Churches, I don’t —
Q. Well, but you’re not a manager of the United Federation of Churches LLC. Correct?
A. Right. I’m a — I’m a member. Isn’t — Isn’t that the language we’re —
Q. Well, if we look back at Exhibit 11 —
A. Okay.
Q. — Exhibit 11 identifies the manager on line 6 as Cevin Soling. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And — And — And the commonwealth required you to identify the name and business address of each manager of the limited liability company. Correct?
A. Correct. You’re right.
Q. And Cevin Soling is list — identified as the only manager. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if you turn to the next page, number 7, you are identified as someone who is not a manager but given limited authority to, quote, execute documents filed with the corporation division. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And if we turn to Exhibit 12 — So that’s for the year 2015 you were not the manager. For the year 2016, in Exhibit 12, you were not the manager. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. In the year 2017 you were not the manager. Correct?
A. On —
Q. Exhibit 13.
A. — 13? Correct. Here again I’m the resident agent.
Q. Right. In Exhibit 15 you are not identified as a manager. Correct?
A. Correct. I’m listed as resident agent.
Q. In Exhibit 16 for the year 2019 you were not identified as a manager. Correct?
A. Correct. I am listed as resident agent.
Q. Okay. So let’s turn back to Exhibit 25.
A. 25. Okay.
Q. A document with a registration date of February 10, 2015. Correct?
A. I’m sorry. Let me — Let me see.
Q. “Registration Date.” (Mr. Claus indicated.)
A. Oh, okay. Okay.
Q. February 10, 2015. Correct?
A. I see that, yes.
Q. For the trademark “The Satanic Temple.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. We know, having now looked at the organizational filings with the commonwealth, that as of February 10, 2015 you were not a manager of the United Federation of Churches LLC. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So do you see there is a tab that says “Assign Status” on Exhibit 25?
A. I see that.
Q. Do you know if a document has been filed with the United States Patent & Trademark Office that assigns the trademark reflected in Exhibit 25 to any individual or entity other than the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. I do not know that that has ever taken place.
Q. Okay. Do you know if the United Federation of Churches LLC has entered into a licensing agreement with The Satanic Temple Inc. whereby The Satanic Temple Inc. is permitted to lawfully use the trademark, quote, The Satanic Temple, end quote?
A. Again let me say I know of no legal documentation that would — that would confer that right.…
Q. And that Web — So as of January 15, 2013 members were invited to join The Satanic Temple. Correct?
A That’s — That’s what it appears from here. I’m not — This is — I mean I have to say this is before — this is before my time. Right? This is —
Q. But you are the designee with knowledge.
A. But this — this predates the formation of — of the company and — and to my — as far as I’m concerned, it predates The Satanic Temple as — as I have a part in it now.
Q. Okay. Do you see —
…
Q. Do you see how members were invited to join The Satanic Temple and pay a $25 fee for a certificate on parchment?
A. That’s what I see now. But as I explained before Matt got cut off — or after Matt got cut off, this predated me. I’m not — You know, to me this — this predates the — the form — formalization of The Satanic Temple and what it is today.
Q. Do you know if there’s been a time — Since you’ve been associated with The Satanic Temple and as the designee for the United Federation of Churches LLC, do you know if there has been a time when a member did not have to pay $25 to receive a certificate?
A. If there — To receive a certificate?
Q. Correct.
A. So membership doesn’t cost anything.
Q. That wasn’t my question. Do you know of a time when a member did not have to pay $25 to receive a certificate?
A. No. To my knowledge, for somebody to receive the card with certificate, they need to pay for that.
Q. $25?
A. Correct.
Q. It’s always been $25. Correct?
A. I believe it’s always been $25.
…
Q. Do you know if engaging in religious activities is a law — was a lawful activity under chapter 156 of the Massachusetts General Laws as of February 8, 2016?
A. As opposed to illegal?
Q. Well, do you know if engaging in a religious activity by a limited liability company was a lawfully permitted activity of a limited liability company under Massachusetts General Law 156C as of February 8, 2016?
A. I’m sorry. That’s a question I never thought to ask because I never thought there could be any — any question that that would be lawful.
Q. Okay. So does the answer, then — You don’t know?
A. Correct.
Q. You were asked about whether you had breached a contract — or been threatened with a breach of contract lawsuit. Are there any written contracts between the United Federation of Churches LLC and you whereby you are conferred the authority to act as a manager or agent of that entity?
A. Well, we just looked at — I’m — I’m defined as resident agent, I think we saw in the documentation.
Q. I’m asking you about contracts. Are there any written agreements supported by consideration where you are authorized to act as anything other than a resident agent of the United Federation of Churches LLC?
A. Not that I can recall.
The Satanic Temple v. Scottsdale
(Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC)
Transcript of Bench Trial Day 2
Cross-Examination of Douglas Alexander Misicko
Jan. 23, 2020
Note: much of the elided transcript involves the city of Scottsdale mistaking David Guinan (“Nicholas Crowe”) for Cevin Soling (“Malcolm Jarry”); both were involved with The Satanic Temple in the 2013 prank-film-project era primarily associated with Spectacle Films Inc., but Soling went on to co-own the Temple with Doug Misicko while Guinan left it at some point.
Q. Let’s talk about the organization. You claim to be a cofounder of The Satanic Temple?
A. I am.
Q. And you just testified, quote, there have not, end quote, ever been anything other than the seven tenets with respect to The Satanic Temple. Do you recall that testimony?
A. There was never any other codified set of beliefs in the founding of The Satanic Temple.
Q. United Federation of Churches LLC owns the trademark The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The United Federation of Churches LLC owns the domain name www.thesatanictemple.com; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You know as a matter of historic fact that you were involved with The Satanic Temple as of July 22, 2013; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know as a matter of fact that as of July 22, 2013, the website www.thesatanictemple.com stated that there are nine fundamental tenets, with nine being a significant satanic number; correct?
A. Correct. That was a placeholder website preceding my involvement with the Satanic Temple.
Q. No, sir. July 22, 2013, was a day on which you had already become involved in the Satanic Temple.
A. Yes. Well, not everything happened on one day at one time.
Q. That wasn’t my question, sir. As of July 22, 2013, you had been involved with The Satanic Temple for nearly seven months; correct?
A. And we had not yet changed the placeholder website.
Q. Sir, that wasn’t my question. If you could answer my question.
A. Say again.
Q. Sure. As of July 22, 2013, you —
A. Yes, as of that date —
Q. — you had —
A. — we had not changed the placeholder website.
Q. Let me ask my question, please.
A. Carry on.
Q. As of July 22, 2013, you had been associated with The Satanic Temple as its so-called spokesperson for nearly seven months. Is that a true statement or a false statement?
A. It could be either. I’m not that certain on the timeline.
…
Q. I have asked the courtroom deputy to give you Exhibits 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60. You know that as of August 5, 2013, you were involved as a purported spokesperson for The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And do you know that as of September 4, 2013, you had been involved with The Satanic Temple as its purported spokesperson; correct?
A. Yeah, I believe so.
Q. And you know that as of November 3, 2013, you were involved as the purported spokesperson for The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know that as of December 12, 2013, you were involved as a spokesperson for something that called itself The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also know that on July 22, 2013, August 5, 2013, September 4, 2013, November 3, 2013, and December 12, 2013, the domain name and website owned and controlled by the United Federation of Churches LLC, www.thesatanictemple.com, represented that there are nine fundamental tenets, with nine being a significant satanic number associated with the thing calling itself The Satanic Temple; correct?
…
Q. You testified, on questioning by your counsel, when you were asked have there ever been anything other than seven tenets, you testified under penalty of perjury, quote, there have not, end quote; correct?
A. Yes, I have testified everything under penalty of perjury. And I will tell you again that that was a placeholder website and nobody viewed any of that as codified — a codified part of the religion.
Q. It was a placeholder website in July of 2013 when you were acting as spokesperson? August, September, November, and December of 2013, when you were acting as spokesperson?
A. Yes. It was a placeholder website until it was changed to the formal website with the codified tenets.
Q. But in 2013, the thing that called itself The Satanic Temple had already been engaging in activities; correct?
A. Those activities probably prevented me from doing any web
work.
Q. You know who Malcolm Jarry is; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Malcolm Jarry is a fake name; correct?
A It’s a pseudonym.
Q. Mr. Jarry’s real name is Cevin with a C, C-E-V-I-N, Soling? True?
A. Yes.
Q. Cevin Soling, who also uses the name Malcolm Jarry, is the managing member of the United Federation of Churches LLC; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And UFC, United Federation of Churches LLC, not only owns the domain name for The Satanic Temple, owns the trademark for The Satanic Temple, but also owns all of the other trademarks used and associated with The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. Correct.
…
Q. The Satanic Temple doesn’t have an actual temple; true?
A. Well, that’s debatable. We have our headquarters in Salem that we could refer to as a temple.
Q. You could refer to as a temple. But on your website that you published as of today, you don’t refer to it as a temple, you refer to it as a museum; correct?
A. I refer to it as The Satanic Temple.
Q. That is a museum and a gift shop; correct?
A. It is the Satanic Temple headquarters.
Q. That has a museum and a gift shop; correct?
A. It has a museum and a gift shop.
…
THE COURT: I’ll admit Exhibit 103.
(Exhibit 103 admitted.)
MR. CLAUS: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. Now, directing you to that bold heading in the center of
the page that starts with the words “Does TST.” Do you see
that?
A. Yes.
Q. So I’m going to ask you again, The Satanic Temple tells the world that it does, quote, not wish to have anyone succumb to religious groupthink, end quote; correct?
A. The Satanic Temple Arizona apparently has that, but this is the first I’m seeing it.
Q. Sir, as the purported spokesperson of The Satanic Temple, you just told the Court that you take very seriously the way in which chapters use your brand and your trademarks; correct?
A. Correct. And that does not conflict with my statement
that I had not read this before.
Q. The Satanic Temple is a trademark that is owned by United Federation of Churches LLC; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Chapters of The Satanic Temple are authorized to operate websites by you; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And chapters of The Satanic Temple are authorized to use the trademarks and intellectual property of The Satanic Temple, that is actually the United Federation of churches LLC, by you; correct?
A. Correct. Nonetheless, this is the first I’m seeing this
page.
Q. Do you see how this page told the public that, quote, The
Satanic Temple does not proselytize to the public nor do we wish to have anyone succumb to religious groupthink”?
A. Yes, I’m seeing that now for the first time.
Q. And that statement is in response to a question, “Does TST offer any public services, i.e., church, sermons,” question mark; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. “Currently local chapter” —
THE COURT: What page are you on?
MR. CLAUS: Page 2 of Exhibit 103.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. “Currently local chapters of The Satanic Temple do not have physical locations.” Correct?
A. Right, it says that on this page.
Q. And you testified that The Satanic Temple referred to its physical headquarters as the temple. Do you recall that testimony you just gave?
A. Correct.
Q. If you look at the first page of Exhibit 103, the question “where’s the temple located” is answered with the words “TheSatanic Temple headquarters, also known as the Salem Art Gallery in Salem, Massachusetts, is open to the public.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You talked, when you were being examined by Mr. Haan, that The Satanic Temple engages in worship. Do you remember that testimony?
A. I do not.
Q. It’s a true statement that worship is antithetical to satanism; correct?
A. I’m not sure where you’re getting this quote that I said we engage in worship.
Q. It’s true, is it not, sir, that worship is antithetical to satanism; correct?
A. Depends on how you define worship.
Q. If you turn to Exhibit 103, again page 2. The third line from the bottom of the text above the inverted house. The words that say “worship is antithetical to satanism and we worship no beings save ourselves.” When you authorized The Satanic Temple Arizona to use your brand, your trademark, and your intellectual property, did you have any idea what was meant by worship when you authorized The Satanic Temple Arizona to say worship is antithetical to satanism and —
A. You would have to speak to the author of this particular text.
Q. That wasn’t my question, sir.
A. I did not directly authorize these words. This is the first time I’m seeing this text. If you want answers about this text, you would have to speak to the person who authored this text.
…
Q. Still Scot Claus, still with Dickinson Wright, still
representing the City of Scottsdale.I’m going to go back and ask you about your initial involvement with The Satanic Temple. Your initial involvement was regarding a film project to film a rally regarding Governor Rick Scott of Florida?
A. My initial involvement was as a consultant, as a satanist informing a project about satanists.
Q. And that project included a rally ostensibly for
Rick Scott, the governor, or the then governor of Florida?
A. Correct.
Q. That utilized an actor to portray the head of The
Satanic Temple.
A. Correct.
Q. And that was the first activity that you were involved in
with The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. I was involved in consulting on what constitutes authentic satanism.
…
Q. Before we get to those exhibits, Mr. Misicko, you know
what the Church of Satan is; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the Church of Satan does not promote or prescribe the seven tenets you and Mr. Jarry wrote in the last seven years; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know what a theistic satanist is; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you know that theistic satanists practice a religion
they call satanism; correct?
A. I don’t know of any theistic satanic organizations, but I do know that that is the definition. A theistic satanist is somebody who venerates an actual Satan.
Q. And the seven tenets you wrote are not prescribed by
theistic satanists; correct?
A. I don’t know. In fact, there are some who do embrace the seven tenets who I have met out when giving public lectures and the like.
Q. Well, theistic satanists would believe that there is an
actual God and an actual Satan; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. I’m going to have you look at the deposition transcript of The Satanic Temple, Inc., which is the red-covered transcript which has 59 pages. At line 9, on page 36, sir, I’ll let you get there. Just look up when you get to page 36. I’ll read the question that I asked you. “What is the religion promoted by the corporation identified in Exhibit 18? I will avow Exhibit 18 is the articles of incorporation for The Satanic Temple.” Did I read that question correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. And your answer was “Satanism;” correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then my question was: “So accurately characterized, satanism is the religion, not the Satanic Temple; correct?” And your answer was: “Satanism is the religion of The Satanic Temple.” Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. The seven tenets, you wrote the seven tenets; correct?
A. I co-authored the satanic tenets. Or the seven tenets.
Q. Who was the co-author, was that Mr. Jarry?
A. Correct.
Q. The seven tenets are unique to the Satanic Temple;
correct?
A. I would argue that they describe something that was
pre-existing, but we were the first ones to really put it down in codified form.
Q. Well, even your own website, up through December of 2013, did not have the seven tenets; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And those tenets, your seven tenets, specifically eschew
that notion; correct?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. But you’re familiar with LaVeyan satanism; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And LaVeyan satanists do not prescribe or promote the
seven tenets you wrote seven years ago with Mr. Jarry;
correct?
A. They do not promote any concept of satanism that runs outside of the satanic bible as authored by Anton LaVey.
Q. I’m going to have you look now, sir, at Exhibit 63. As of April 17, 2014, it is accurate to say that you had been acting as a spokesperson for The Satanic Temple for more than a year; correct?
A. Maybe. But I was then.
Q. And if you look at Exhibit 63, is an internet archive of
the domain name owned at that time by the United Federation of Churches LLC for TheSatanicTemple.com; correct?
A. Yes, this is the same placeholder website we went over ad nauseam an hour ago.
Q. In fact, Mr. Misicko, while I appreciate your commentary, my question was that Exhibit 63 is an archived website for the domain name owned by the United Federation of Churches LLC SatanicTemple.com; is that correct or incorrect?
A. I don’t know that United Federation of Churches existed at the time of the website. It certainly didn’t exist at the time this website was posted.
.Q The United Federation of Churches LLC owned the —
A. Yes, it’s still owned, the Web domain —
THE COURT: Wait —
THE WITNESS: — where the placeholder was.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Wait for the question,
please.
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. The United Federation of Churches owned and controlled, according to your prior testimony, the website
www.SatanicTemple.com; correct?
A. Yes, it owned the domain where the placeholder site
resided before it was revised.
Q. And as of April 17, 2014, the website owned and controlled by the United Federation of Churches described God as supernatural and outside of this sphere; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. It also described the website owned and controlled by the United Federation of Churches as of April 17, 2014, described satanists subordinate to God but mankind’s only conduit to the dominion beyond the physical; correct?
A. Correct. But to be fair, I would still describe God as supernatural, even though I don’t believe in a supernatural god.
Q. And as of April 17, 2014, the website owned by the United Federation of Churches LLC told people who accessed the website owned and controlled by the organization called The Satanic Temple, quote, only Satan can hear our prayers and only Satan can respond; correct?
A. Yes, that was a placeholder website that pre-existed the formal establishment of The Satanic Temple and was not revised until later on thereafter.
Q. Let’s talk about The Satanic Temple, Inc., one of the entities that is a plaintiff in this matter. The Satanic Temple, Inc., was not organized as a corporate entity until November 14, 2017; correct?
A. I believe that’s correct.
…
Q. Please follow along with me as I read the question
starting at line 5. “No, I want to know if Michelle Shortt has ever held a position as an officer of the corporation The Satanic Temple, Inc.” Did I read that question correctly, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. What was your one word answer?
A. My answer was “No.” But here I’d offer the caveat that I was referring to The Satanic Temple, Inc., as the overarching organization. I’m not a corporate lawyer so I don’t know how that fits in with the affiliate agreement and those agreements thereafter. I know we gave them the trademark rights and the right to speak on behalf of us. But, I mean, our corporate — our incorporation documents are something put together by lawyers with the most useful structure for what we’re doing in mind.
Q. I know you don’t like me reminding you that when you
testify, you testify under penalty of perjury, but when I took your deposition and asked you if Michelle Shortt has ever held a position as officer in the corporation The Satanic Temple, Inc., you did not say any of the words you just said; correct?
A Correct.
Q. You said “No”; correct?
A. Correct. But I’m offering you the caveat now.
Q. And when I asked you, sir, “Has Michelle Shortt ever held a position as a director of The Satanic Temple, Inc.,” you gave me the one word answer “No”; is that true or is that false?
A. It’s true along with the caveat that you are pointing
exactly to the people who signed the paperwork as director and as officer, pointing out that none of them were Michelle Shortt, and I was agreeing with you.
Q. No, sir, I wasn’t pointing to anything. I asked you a
question and you responded with no caveats and nothing other than a one word answer, “No”; true?
A. Yes, if you take — if you take this script in isolation,
we see that I said no to that question.
Q. Yep. That’s how it works. The Satanic Temple, Inc., has never filed a certificate with the Arizona Corporation Commission; is that correct?
A. I’m not actually certain of that. I don’t know how the
affiliate agreements work; I’m not a corporate lawyer, I
didn’t set up the corporate structure.
Q. When I asked you — if you’d turn to the next page, please, page 25, beginning at line 12, “Has The Satanic Temple, Inc., ever filed a document with the Arizona
Corporation Commission,” you answered, “Not that I — not that I’m aware of, no.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And when I asked you, sir, if The Satanic Temple had ever filed a document with the Arizona Secretary of State, you answered, “Not to my knowledge, no.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The Satanic Temple, Inc., has no written agreement with
the owner of the trademark The Satanic Temple, the
intellectual property comprising The Satanic Temple, or any other agreement with the United Federation of Churches LLC; correct?
A. I’m sorry, say again.
Q. Sure. The owner of the intellectual property for The
Satanic Temple is the United Federation of Churches LLC.
You’ve testified to that numerous times today; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. There is no written agreement between the United
Federation of Churches LLC and the organization The Satanic Temple, Inc.; correct?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You knew on September 24th, 2019, sir, if you turn to page 33 of the transcript of the deposition with the red
cover, the same transcript we’ve been talking about.
I asked you — are you there, sir? I asked you at line 25 of page 33, “Do you know if The Satanic Temple has any written agreements with the United Federation of Churches LLC?” And you answered, as the only designee for that entity, “Not that I — not that I know of. I don’t think
there’s formal paperwork –” I interrupted. I apologized for that. “Okay.” And you finished your answer “– elucidating
that.” Do you see that, sir?
A. No. Is this — you say this is page 33?
Q. Page 33, starting at line 25. The very last line. I asked you, as the only designee of The Satanic Temple, Inc., “Do you know if The Satanic Temple, Inc., has any written agreements with the United Federation of Churches
LLC?” And your answer, beginning at line 3, was: “Not that
I — not that I know of. I don’t think there’s formal paperwork elucidating that.” Correct?
A. Correct. I didn’t know then and I don’t know now.
Q. The Satanic Temple, Inc. — strike that The United Federation of Churches LLC, that entity does not play any role in determining or governing who may become a member of the Arizona chapter of The Satanic Temple; true?
A. I don’t know what you mean by that.
Q. I’ll ask it again. The United Federation of Churches LLC does not play any role in governing or determining who may be a member of the Arizona chapter of The Satanic Temple. Is that a true statement or false statement?
A. I don’t know because I don’t know what that means.
Q. If you get out the deposition transcript with the orange — imagine that — the deposition transcript of the United Federation of Churches LLC, that is the 83-page deposition. If you turn, please, to page 55 of that deposition transcript and just let me know when you’re there. You knew on September 24, 2019, when I was asking you as the only designee of the United Federation of Churches LLC that the United Federation of Churches has never played a role in governing or determining who may be a member of The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you told me then, because it was true then, that the United Federation of Churches LLC has never played a role in governing or determining who may be a member of the Arizona chapter of The Satanic Temple; correct?
A. I think what’s going on here is that —
Q. I want you to answer my question —
A. — I might not have known what you’re talking about then, and I don’t think I know what you’re talking about now. I’m a designee of the United Federation of Churches. I spoke directly with Michelle Shortt and Stu de Haan giving explicit permission —
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. That’s not the
question.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: If he asks you to answer a question yes
or no, do so if you can. If you can’t, tell him you can’t
answer it yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I understand.
THE COURT: And then if your counsel wants to give
you time to elaborate, they’ll do that.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. Sir, you just testified about your lack of understanding.
But I want to take to you line 9 on page 55 of the September 24th, 2019, deposition of you as the only 30(b)(6) designee of the United Federation of Churches LLC. When I asked you at line 9: “Okay. Does the United Federation of Churches LLC play any role in governing or determining who may be a member of the Arizona chapter of The Satanic Temple,” you did not tell me in response that you were confused; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You did not tell me in response that you did not
understand my question; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You did not tell me in your response that you could not
answer my question because it required you to exceed the
knowledge that you had as a designee; correct?
A. Correct. And in that light, I can tell you what I think I meant —
Q. No, sir, I’m not asking —
A. — which is that the United States — United Federation of
Churches —
THE COURT: Hold on. I know it’s frustrating to
you, but you need to answer his questions.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. No, sir. The answer that you gave me was, “No. The
Arizona chapter is autonomous in that regard.” Is that the answer you gave me?
A. Correct.
Q. Thank you.
A. However —
Q. You —
A. — that does not speak to the —
Q. No, sir —
A. — membership the chapter has in management of that chapter as a member.
THE COURT: Mr. Misicko, please confine your answer
to the question.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. In fact, sir, chapters of The Satanic Temple are given a,
quote, maximum of autonomy; correct?
A. I see what you’re misunderstanding is here.
Q. No, sir, I’m asking —
A. There’s a difference between membership and management.
MR. CLAUS: Your Honor —
THE COURT: Ask the question —
MR. CLAUS: — I’m going to move to strike that
response as nonresponsive.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. And ask: Chapters of The Satanic Temple are given, quote, a maximum of autonomy. Is that incorrect or is that a correct statement?
A. The maximum that we can allow within —
Q. Thank you.
A. — certain limitations.
Q. One does not need to be a satanist to be a member of the
Arizona chapter of The Satanic Temple; true?
A You’d have to ask the management of The Satanic Temple who are all identified as satanists.
Q. The Satanic Temple, Inc., talking about The Satanic
Temple, Inc., has never communicated with the City of
Scottsdale; correct?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.
Q. As of today — strike that. As of September 2019, you believed that there were 450 members of The Satanic Temple who lived in Arizona; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you assumed that all 450 of those members were secularists; correct?
A. I assumed nothing.
Q. Well, you told me during the deposition of you as the 30(b)(6) designee of The Satanic Temple, Inc., that you did assume that all 450 were secularists; correct?
A. Where’s this?
Q. Sure. The deposition with the red cover, the
September 24, 2019, deposition of you as the 30(b)(6) designee of The Satanic Temple, Inc. Please turn to page 53. Strike that. We’ll start at 52 to put it in context. Just tell me when you’re there.
A. I’m there.
Q. I asked you, starting at line 18: “Today, as the designee
of The Satanic Temple, Inc., do you know how many members of The Satanic Temple reside in the State of Arizona?” You answered: “I don’t know but I can give you a minimum number.” I interrupted. “If I check my — my phone here, a minimum number of 450.” Did I read my question and your answer correctly, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. And then I asked you, beginning at line 9: “Do you know,
of the members in Arizona today, those 450, how many are
secularists?” Did I read that correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. Please tell the Court what you answered on that day.
A. On that day I said, “I assume they’re all secularists.”
Q. Thank you. Being a member of the organization called The Satanic Temple is not only available to a practicing satanist, but also to those who wish to merely advance secularism or are advocating for individual liberty; correct?
A. Are you asking if that was your question or is that your question now?
Q. Sir, I’m asking you.
THE COURT: Clarify, please.
MR. CLAUS: I will, thank you.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q Being a — I’m asking you the question, standing here
right now. Being a member of the organization called The Satanic Temple is not only available to practicing satanists but also to those who wish to merely advance secularism or advocate for individual liberty. Is that a true statement or false statement?
A. That’s true.
…
Q. The United Federation of Churches LLC, the organization that owns and controls all of the trademarks and intellectual property of The Satanic Temple, has never sought tax-exempt status; correct?
A. I’m sorry, who has not?
Q. The United Federation of Churches LLC, which owns and controls all of the trademarks and intellectual property of The Satanic Temple, that entity has never sought tax-exempt status; correct?
A. I don’t know if it’s considered tied in with that through its relationship to The Satanic Temple, Inc. Again, I’m not a corporate lawyer, I don’t know how these things are intertwined.
Q. You had no problem answering my question during the time you testified as the designee on September 24, 2019. If you look at the orange deposition —
THE COURT: Excuse me. Is that a question?
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q — at the orange deposition —
THE COURT: Let’s ask the question, please.
BY MR. CLAUS:
Q. The orange deposition, sir. Page 28. Are you there?
A. Yes.
Q. At line 17, I asked you the question: “Has the United
Federation of Churches LLC ever sought tax-exempt status from the IRS?” And you answered as the Rule 30(b)(6) designee: “To my knowledge, that was never, never, the route we pursued that with.” That was your answer; correct?
A. I believe that was also my answer this time.
Q. Cevin Soling, who goes by the name Malcolm Jarry, is the only manager of the United Federation of Churches LLC; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You do not know of any document that permits The Satanic Temple, Inc., to lawfully use the trademarks and intellectual property owned by the United Federation of Churches LLC; correct?
A. I do know of such a document.
Q. Sir, when you testified as the Rule 30(b)(6) designee of
the United Federation of Churches LLC you told me you knew of no such document; correct?
A. Right. As of deposition, I did not know of such a document.
Q. If you look at page 34, line 23, of the orange-covered
deposition. “Question: Okay. Do you know if the United
Federation of Churches LLC has entered into a licensing
agreement with The Satanic Temple, Inc., whereby The
Satanic Temple, Inc., is permitted to lawfully use the
trademark, quote, The Satanic Temple?” And your answer was, “Again, let me say I know of no legal documentation that would — that would confer that right.” Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you knew —
A. Now I do.
Q. — you knew when you were sitting for your deposition on September 24, 2019, that you had been designated as the only deponent knowledgeable about the topics listed in the notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; correct?
A. Incorrect.
Q. Turn, sir, to page 6 of the orange-covered deposition, the
deposition of United Federation of Churches LLC. I’m going to start at line 19 on page 6. “Exhibit 7 is the notice of 30(b)(6) deposition of the United Federation of Churches LLC. Do you see that? “Answer: Yes. “Question: And please take a look at Exhibit A to Exhibit 7, which is the list of topics for which you’ve been designated as deponent. Exhibit A to Exhibit 7. “Answer: Okay. Yes. “Question. Do you agree that you are the person most knowledgeable about the topics listed in Exhibit A of Exhibit 7?” And your answer was: “The most knowledgeable representative of the company in question.” And I clarified. “Question: Of the United Federation of Churches LLC?” And you answered: “Correct, yeah.”
Right?
A. I see no discrepancy in my answer today.
Q. You sat for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the United Federation of Churches as the only designee produced with knowledge about the topics identified in the notice of
deposition. That is a true statement; correct?
…
A. The lawyers who put together the paperwork, they would be more knowledgeable, they would be more knowledgeable deponents. I cannot say that I would be the most knowledgeable deponent about the corporate structure of The Satanic Temple. But as a representative of the company itself, I’m what we’ve got.
Q. You know, as the designee of the United Federation of
Churches, that Michelle Shortt never asked the manager of the United Federation of Churches LLC for authority to speak on behalf of that organization; correct?
A. Incorrect.
Q. Could you please turn to page 35 of the orange colored
deposition, the deposition of you as the designee of the
United Federation of Churches LLC. Starting at line 25. “okay. Prior to February 8, 2016, did Michelle Shortt ever ask Cevin Soling, as the manager of the United Federation of Churches LLC for permission to speak on behalf of that legal entity?” And your answer was: “Not that I’m aware of.” Correct?
A. Again, I’m not seeing the discrepancy. I’m still not
aware of it today. But I’m not making the absolute claim that she did not.
Q. The operating agreement for the United Federation of
Churches LLC does not confer agency authority on anyone other than the manager of that entity; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You do not know the date that Michelle Shortt became a
member of The Satanic Temple, do you?
A. I do not.
…
Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 61 to be the certificate of
organization for the entity called the United Federation of
Churches LLC?
A. Yes.
Q. And dated February 4, 2014?
A. Correct.
Q. Which predated Exhibit 63, which identified God and Satan as supernatural on April 17, 2014; correct?
A. Correct.
…
Q. Exhibit 85 is a restated certificate of organization for the United Federation of Churches LLC that was submitted to
the Massachusetts Corporations Division on May 21, 2018. Do you see that? The last page. Certification from William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth.
A. Correct.
Q. And in box 3, the United Federation of Churches LLC is
asked to describe the general character of the business and ifthe limited liability is organized to render professional
service, the service to be rendered; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And in the general character of business in the restated
certificate of organization filed with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on 5/21/2018, the United Federation of ChurchesLLC, did not mention religion at all; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The lawsuit in this case had been filed as of May 21,
2018; true?
A. Correct.
MR. CLAUS: That’s all I have for this witness,
Your Honor.
Cave v. Thurston
(Case 4:18-cv-00342-KGB)
Exhibit 7 – Satanic Temple Deposition Excerpts — Document #124, Attachment #7,
March 10, 2020 (Pages 22-26)
Q: Okay. All right. I’m handing Exhibit 38. Do you recognize this as the Reason Alliance, Limited, Articles of Organization filed September 26,
2014? And you can see that up at the — up at the very top. And I believe it’s also on the last page as well, September 26, 2014.A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let’s take a look at the first page there, that big paragraph.
It starts out: “The corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes to promote the tenets as herein described, including for such purposes: The making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,” and then it continues on. Did I read that correctly?A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So which organization was contemplated here as the recipient of distributions from Reason Alliance, Limited?
A. I don’t know technically in legalistic terms if it would be that that would be disbursed to United Federation of Churches for use by The Satanic Temple, but the notion was that — and this was something conceived of by the lawyer we worked with as being how this just works.
If you’re both running a nonprofit and an LLC — because we were raising donations for our campaigns on a nonprofit basis. And — and donors could get their tax writeoff, the 501(c)(3), that kind of thing. And that needed to be kept separate from the other level of incorporation.
And this is — this is the method by which the lawyer — let’s see. Yeah, this was — this was James MacNaughton devised as being the — the way that this is done.
Q. Okay. So was this a fund-raising — was this an organization created for fund-raising purposes then?
A. Yeah, I believe that would be an accurate way of putting that.
Q. Okay.
A. But this was, like, the 501(c)(3) entity attached to the fund-raising efforts of The Satanic Temple.
Q. Okay. And if you take a look at the third page there, it’s got — it lists Doug Misicko as president, treasurer, secretary, and director; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Has Reason Alliance ever had any other officers, directors or trustees or secretaries or — I’m going to leave one out — treasurers?
A. I — I don’t — I don’t think that’s ever changed throughout the paperwork. But, I — I mean, I should point out that this is kind of filled in for the purposes of satisfying the — the paperwork put forward by — by MacNaughton. My understanding was that that’s — that’s just what you do. So —
Q. Okay.
A. — now I’m not sure the status of Reason Alliance or if it’s something that’s useful to us because I still any compensation or income or any reimbursement or —
MR. KEZHAYA: Again, this is a question
for Doug Misicko with his personal hat on for tomorrow.
MR. CANTRELL: Okay. I’ll — I’ll ask him tomorrow.
…
Q. (Mr. Cantrell) Okay. Mr. Misicko, I’m handing you
Exhibit 42.
A. 42.
Q. And do you recognize this as the Articles of Organization for Cinephobia, LLC, filed August 26, 2018?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And on the first page there, look at that Section 2a. The address is listed as 64 Bridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And that’s the same as The Satanic Temple, Inc., right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And the managers are listed as — under Paragraph 6 as Doug Misicko and Cevin Soling, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So what is Cinephobia?
A. Cinephobia is the production company we put together to have a discrete, separate entity through which we could work the — towards the — to manage the finances and — and other organizational goals of our online video streaming platform, which is at the URL — gosh, I forget it. The Satanic Temple TV or — or TheSatanicTemple.TV.
Q. Okay. And Cinephobia doesn’t have any managers, officers, or directors other than Cevin Soling and Doug Misicko; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. And Cinephobia doesn’t have any legal or financial oversight by anyone else, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And has Cinephobia ever made public disclosures of its income or expenditures?
A. I don’t know that Cinephobia is old enough to have filed anything yet, but they would at this — at this current tax term.
Q. Okay. And so, to your knowledge, Cinephobia has never made public disclosures of income or expenditures to date?
A. Correct. Let me — to my knowledge, they’re not old enough to have — to have actually filed any IRS — need to have had any IRS filings. I know this is August 26, 2018, but The Satanic Temple TV didn’t go online until this past October; and only then did Cinephobia start having any finances generated, any — any income generated through — through its activities.
Q. Okay. Is Cinephobia a nonprofit organization?
A. No. Cinephobia is an LLC.
Q. Okay. Okay. And you can set that aside. So help me understand. There’s — as I see it, there’s these four corporate entities. There’s United
Federation of Churches; there’s Reason Alliance, which is a nonprofit; there’s The Satanic Temple, Inc., which is a nonprofit; and then there’s Cinephobia. And help me understand how these relate to each other financially and organizationally?
A. Well, my understanding is that United Federation of Churches and Reason Alliance can be phased out now with the existence of The Satanic Temple, Inc. I could be wrong about that. I don’t know if they serve a functional purpose any longer. But Cinephobia is a separate entity in that Cinephobia works with content creators and — “content creators,” I mean filmmakers. And these filmmakers don’t necessarily have to be people who identify with The Satanic Temple, but they create content that we think would be of interest to members of The Satanic Temple and subscribers to TSTTV. We have content creator agreements with those content creators overseen by Cinephobia, LLC, where they receive a certain amount of the moneta- — monetization generated through the viewership of their content and subscriptions. And that’s a percentage based upon how many views are gained on their material and that kind of thing. So Cinephobia is essentially a separate account to keep that separate so that we are using Cinephobia funds to pay the content creators. And that — that account holds the revenue generated through the streaming platform.
Q. Okay. Do any of these four organizations control any of the others?
A. Well, we view it as all part of the larger — The Satanic Temple Organization. And, you know, primary to me is just the mission and purpose of The Satanic Temple at large. And in my own mind things like The Satanic Temple TV and the Cinephobia entity made to — to help keep that better organized are just really — really are legalistic requirements to make sure that we operate these things appropriately and — and functionally to the best of our ability.
Q. Do any of these organizations engage in financial transactions with the others?
A. Well, we — we already covered how Reason Alliance would — was used to disburse funds to campaigns of The Satanic Temple. As for Cinephobia, that accounting is kept separate; so that account accrues on its own and — and the funds towards content creators are — are derived strictly from Cinephobia.
Q. Okay. So which — which organization is the Intervenor, The Satanic Temple, in this litigation?
A. It’s The Satanic Temple.
Q. Okay. The Satanic Temple, Inc.?
MR. KEZHAYA: Object to speculation. He’s not a lawyer.
Q. Well, you can answer if — if you — if you do
know.
MR. KEZHAYA: Oh, yeah. Yeah, you can go ahead and answer whenever I’m objecting. Unless I say “don’t answer,” go ahead and answer.
A. To me the Intervenor is The Satanic Temple as a religious organization. This kind of paperwork is meant to justify different facets sometimes of The Satanic Temple. But to me it’s all this larger religious body, this — this organization of — of The Satanic Temple. So to me it’s not a question of who — who’s — I’m just trying to tell you how — how that question doesn’t necessarily make sense to me from how I contextualize what this organization is.
Q. So, if I understand what you’re saying, there is — there is The Satanic Temple, which is kind of an umbrella. And then under that umbrella you have: The Satanic Temple, Inc.; you have United Federation of Churches; you have Reason Alliance; and then you have Cinephobia?
A. I don’t even see those things as under any type of umbrella. These are — and, you know, things like Reason Alliance and the United Federation of Churches are completely different to me than something like Cinephobia; because Cinephobia is representative of another project within The Satanic Temple. United Federation of Churches, Reason Alliance where more things, entities that emerged from consultation with either accountants or lawyers meant to help us better manage The Satanic Temple. But to me The Satanic Temple has always been this kind of one thing.
Q. So and I’m — I’m trying to understand how you understand this to work. So you claim that The Satanic Temple is tax exempt?
A. No. It demonstrably is.
Q. Okay. But when you talk about The Satanic Temple, that includes organizations that are for profit and not tax exempt; right? You see the struggle I’m having?
A. I — I don’t — I don’t see that as being — I mean, I see plenty of religious organizations that operate in the same — same manner, so it’s not something to me that makes me think that this is something untoward or something questionable.
Q. Well, I’m not even suggesting at — I mean, at this point that it’s questionable. I’m just trying to understand, you know, all of the individual statements that I’m seeing, one being The Satanic Temple is tax exempt, another one being that all of these corporate entities are related and we can refer to all — all of them in some way as “The Satanic Temple.” And those include for-profit businesses. That’s what I’m — that’s the disconnect I’m — I’m feeling and not understanding. Can you shed any light on that?
A. Well, I’m not really sure what the question is, because there is a tax exempt religious organization of The Satanic Temple; but it can also engage in for-profit commerce, a online Web store or whatever else. And, you know, my understanding of it is that this is how you do those things, how you do those various things.
Q. Okay. Let me ask you more specifically about some related things. So I’m handing you Exhibit 44. Do you recognize this as a Web page titled, “Contribute to The Satanic Temple,” from TheSatanicTemple.com? And this was printed on February 11, 2020. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And so it says — there’s a little asterisk there toward the bottom on the right. It says: “Contributions/donations support the efforts and campaigns of The Satanic Temple but are not tax deductible.” Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So — so is it true that contributions to The Satanic Temple are not tax deductible?
A. They — they should be tax deductible now. I don’t know where we are in the process of updating so that these things work in alignment with our current IRS status. I don’t know — I — I can’t really offer more illumination on this particular item on the site. But I do know this has been an ongoing process to…
…
Q. Okay. All right. And you can set that aside. All right. Now I’m showing you Exhibit 63. Can you tell me what this is?
A. I’ve got it.
Q. Can you tell me, what is Exhibit 63?
A. It looks like it’s screen grabs from the online shop from The Satanic Temple Web site.
Q. Okay. And so these are items that are for sale on SatanicTemple.com; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And when a person makes — makes a purchase on TheSatanicTemple.com of one of these items, where does that money go? Does it go to a particular — one of the particular legal entities? Or does it go into an account controlled by you? Or by Malcolm Jarry? Or what happens to that?
A. Well, that — that goes into a general fund.
Q. Okay. A general fund for non-tax exempt contributions?
A. A — a general fund I guess generated by the — by the for-profit incorporation of The Satanic Temple.
Q. Okay. And so that would be — that would be the United Federation of Churches?
A. I assume. I assume so.
Cave v. Thurston
(Case 4:18-cv-00342-KGB)
Exhibit 2 – relevant portions of TST’s deposition — Document #189, Attachment #2
March 10, 2020
Q. How about you and Cevin? Do you receive a salary or compensation?
A. No, we don’t receive regular compensation.
Q. You don’t receive a regular salary? Or you don’t receive —
A. Correct. I mean, we do not.
Q. Okay. How do you make your life — well, I’ll ask — I’ll ask that another time. How — how does The Satanic Temple — how does the Satanic Temple compensate the managers? So Cevin Soling — excuse me — Malcolm Jarry, and yourself?
A. There — there is no regular set compensation, salary, or anything like that. I haven’t taken income from The Satanic Temple in probably, like, four months now.
Q. So formerly you took an income?
A. Some — sometimes to pay rent and that kind of thing. It wasn’t like — there — never more than $2,000 a month.
Q. Does The Satanic Temple pay for its managers’ business expenses?
A. Oh, well, yes. Like — like, if you’re talking about, like, flying to Arkansas and — and different Satanic Temple related business, yeah. I use the — The Satanic Temple card on all of that.
Q. Okay. So what all of business expenses does Satanic Temple pay for?
A. Are you able to narrow this down at all?
Q. Well, sure. Say, take housing.
A. No. Well, I mean, if you consider having taken payment that goes towards rent, then — then yes. But there is no set protocol within our standards that — that — in which The Satanic Temple automatically pays monthly my rent.
Q. Okay. So do you take dividends? Or anything of that nature?
A. No. I just stay afloat.
Q. You stay afloat?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So I take — how does this work? Do you and — and Malcolm get together and decide what — what is to be done? How things are to be paid? What income is to be paid out? What compensation is to be made?
A. I — I never — I never sat with him and agreed upon a salary for the manager of — of Salem or the part-time employees, so that’s — that’s been within his purview. I’m not sure what — what their actual — what their actual payments are.
Q. So when you received an income, was the same income paid to both managers?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What was the difference in the payment based on?
A. I — I — I don’t know that — I mean, I know Malcolm has his own streams of revenue. And The Satanic Temple has generally not generated revenue, so I don’t know that he’s taken payments or not.
Exhibit 26 Satanic Temple 30(b)(6) Deposition — Document #260, Attachment #41
March 10, 2020
(Deposition commences at 9:14 a.m.)
PROCEEDINGS
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record. The date is March 10, 2020, and the time is 9:14 a.m. This is the deposition of a 30(b)(6) representative of The Satanic Temple, Douglas Alexander Misicko.Will you swear the witness in, please.
(Witness sworn.)
MR. CANTRELL: Okay. Good morning, Mr. Misicko. Before we begin, I — I’d like for everyone here to briefly introduce yourself and say who you represent.
So I’m Michael Cantrell. I represent the Defendant.
MS. PATTERSON: Lea Patterson for the Defendant.
MR. SULLIVAN: Gary Sullivan for the Defendant.
MR. CANTRELL: And state who’s with you, Gary.
MR. SULLIVAN: I have observers Michael Fincher, Rachel Kluender, and Brittany Garcia from my office.
MR. GILLISPIE: Josh Gillispie for the Cave Plaintiffs.
MR. BAKER: Darryl Baker for the Orsi Plaintiffs.
MS. KEZHAYA: Sonia Kezhaya for the Intervenors.
MR. KEZHAYA: Matt Kezhaya for the Intervenors.
MR. CANTRELL: All right. And behind you?
MR. KEZHAYA: Behind me is Erika Robbins.
MR. CANTRELL: Okay. And that’s everyone in the room, right? Okay. All right.
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER MISICKO, Called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MR. CANTRELL:Q. So we’re on the record. As I said, my name’s Michael Cantrell. I represent the Attorney General — excuse me. I represent the Defendant, John Thurston, in this case. I work for the Attorney General’s Office. And can you state your name and date of birth for the record?
A. Douglas Alexander Misicko. August 12, 1975.
Q. Okay. And you’ve used the aliases Lucien Greaves and Doug Mesner, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. What is your position with The Satanic Temple?
A. Cofounder and spokesperson.
Q. Okay. And you’re the representative designated by The Satanic Temple with knowledge of the topics listed in the Notice of Deposition, correct?
A. Correct.
(Exhibit 1 marked for identification.)
Q. Okay. Here you go. I’m handing you Exhibit 1, which is The Satanic Temple 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Okay. Have you ever been deposed before?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Twice, I believe.
Q. Okay. In what lawsuits were those depositions taken?
A. I forget what the title — The Satanic Temple V. Scottsdale.
Q. Okay. This is the Arizona litigation?
A. Yeah, correct.
Q. Okay. Okay.
A. And — and that was two depositions.
Q. Okay. Did you testify under oath and under penalty of perjury when — when you gave those depositions?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you testify truthfully in those depositions?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything about your statements in those depositions that you want to change?
A. Not that I readily recall.
…
Q. You’re familiar with the — the Wayback Machine online, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And so you’re aware that the Wayback Machine is a Web site that archives Web pages that — as they existed on certain dates in the past?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’d have no reason to doubt or dispute the reliability of that process, right?
A. Correct.
(Exhibit 3 marked for identification.)
Q. Okay. I’m handing you Exhibit 3. Do you recognize this as an archive of The Satanic Temple news Web page from April 21, 2014?
A. That is what it says it is, yes.
Q. Okay. And all the news items there posted under the name “Lucien” were written and posted by you, right?
A. That — that I can’t be certain of. I don’t know that I actually did the Web work on that.
Q. Okay. But —
A. But it’s certain — it’s our Web site.
Q. Okay. So the name “Lucien,” would that have been — would that have been applied to news posts that you posted?
A. Not necessarily. It’s a — it’s a WordPress plugin, so there’s a general login. And the general login is probably under the name Lucien, but I — I didn’t do a whole lot of the Web work.
Q. Okay. And, if you’ll look, these news items began in February 2013, correct? It should be the last one.
A. Sorry. What page?
Q. February — let’s see, February 2013 on the last page.
A. Okay. Yes, I see it.
Q. Okay. And they go through March 2014 — well, I guess they go through — through July — well, hold on. Give me one moment. Okay. Yeah, the very first page has a date, March 6, 2014; correct? Do you see that?
A. Oh, correct. Yeah.
Q. Okay.
A. I see that.
(Exhibit 4 marked for identification.)
Q. Okay. And you can set that aside. All right. I’m handing you Exhibit 4. Do you recognize this as an archive of The Satanic Temple Beliefs Web page from January 20, 2013?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Who drafted the text on this page?
A. That I do not know. That predates my involvement.
Q. Who would know that information?
A. I — I honestly don’t know who would know that information. I mean, it predates me by — by quite a ways.
Q. Okay. Who was involved with the Web work before you became involved?
A. Malcolm Jarry was working with unknown parties to me, whether by contract or whether friends or whatever. They put up a generic placeholder Web site.
Q. Okay. And you say it’s a — a “generic placeholder Web site.” Does the word “generic” or “placeholder” appear anywhere on that page?
A. No. It usually doesn’t on generic placeholder Web sites.
Q. Okay. But you wouldn’t know if it — if it was a generic placeholder, right, since it predates your involvement? Is that something you would have been told at a later time?
A. Oh, it was definitely a generic placeholder Web site that predates my involvement with The Satanic Temple.
Q. And on what basis do you — do you say it’s a generic placeholder?
A. Because it was owned by Malcolm Jarry, who was also — who’s also the cofounder with me of The Satanic Temple.
Q. And Mr. Jarry has told you that it was a generic placeholder?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And read along with me as I read out loud that first sentence: “The Satanic Temple believes that God is supernatural and thus outside the sphere of the physical.” Did I read that correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And then the third sentence: “Because God cannot intervene in the material word, He created Satan to preside over the universe as his proxy.” Did I read that correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And then the fifth sentence: “Although Satan is subordinate to God, he is mankind’s only conduit to the dominion beyond the physical. In addition only Satan can hear our prayers and only Satan can respond. While God is beyond human comprehension, Satan desires to be known and knowable.” Did I read those sentences correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So, according to this page, in January 2013 The Satanic Temple embraced a supernaturalistic theology; right?
A. Well, I would contest the idea that The Satanic Temple actually existed outside of the kind of idea and the placeholder Web site with text written by parties unknown to me that may not have reflected the beliefs of anybody in particular.
Q. Okay. But if someone went searching for information about The Satanic Temple, the public face that they would find presented to the world at this time articulated the supernaturalistic theology, correct?
A. Perhaps. It would take more I think investigation, asking whoever wrote this text to explain what they mean by such things. I guess one could believe that God is supernatural while renouncing supernaturalism, but this is — this text is rather obscure to me.
Q. Okay. When did you — when do you claim to have become involved with The Satanic Temple?
A. At some point in 2013.
Q. Some point. Can you be more specific?
A. No. I just began consulting with The Satanic Temple immediately prior to the Rick Scott rally.
Q. Okay. And the Rick Scott rally was in January 2013?
A. I would have to take your word for that.
Q. Okay. Well, we’ll — we’ll come back to that. Okay. So is it your understanding that no one associated with The Satanic Temple really believed in any supernaturalistic theology, even in 2013?
A. There wasn’t a The Satanic Temple as such in 2013. As documented in the book Speak of the Devil by Oxford University Press by Professor Joseph Laycock and documented in the film Hail Satan? distributed by Magnolia Films, The Satanic Temple started out as this kind of film project idea before it was — before I came in and codified it as an actual religious organization.
Q. So — and I’m not sure that I understand your answer to my specific question. Let me ask it again. Nobody associated with The Satanic Temple at that time believed in any supernaturalistic theology, correct?
A. I — I can’t be sure of that. I’m — I’m not sure. I — I never — I mean, Malcolm and I, we do not believe in — in supernatural things.
Q. Okay.
A. Anybody else who he may have been working with when it came to the idea of doing this film project, I — I don’t know where they stand on their — their beliefs.
Q. Okay. What is your understanding of why a supernaturalistic theology was articulated here as opposed to anything else?
A. My understanding is that somebody put together a generic placeholder Web site and put superfluous, irrelevant text in order to — as a placeholder for — for various pages. And this could have been lightly altered cut-and-paste text from somewhere else. I really don’t 1 know what the — what the motivation was.
Q. Okay. Let — let me ask this: So whenever you first became involved, it — you did believe that it was necessary to — to hold to a supernaturalistic theology in order to be taken seriously; is that right?
A. No, I never believed that.
Q. Okay. Did anyone associated with The Satanic Temple believe that it was necessary to articulate a supernaturalistic theology at that time?
A. Not that anybody told me. I came in and pretty much immediately started directing the course of The Satanic Temple and — and really cohered the messaging behind it. And none of this prior material was meaningful to me.
Q. Okay. So Malcolm Jarry would be the one to talk to to find out more about you — the time before your involvement, correct?
A. To a certain degree. I don’t think he might — he would probably not be — it probably wouldn’t be very enlightening to speak to him regarding Web material, because he’s rather — he — he’s — he’s not very Web work savvy, I know that.
Q. Okay. But he would know who would have been at that time, correct?
A. He would probably have a better idea of who might 1 have —
Q. Uh-huh.
A. — put material on the Web sites.
(Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)
Q. Okay. Okay, you can set that aside. All right. I am handing you what’s been marked as Exhibit 5. And do you recognize this as an archive of The Satanic Temple Tenets Web page from March 22, 2013?
A. I recognize it because we went through this placeholder Web site ad nauseam in the Scottsdale case. And, you know, we can parse through every line of it. But the judge didn’t find it compelling there and issued a ruling finding us legitimized as a religious organization, as has the IRS. So, yes, I’ve been through this again and again; but the — you know, the bottom-line answer is I still don’t — I still don’t have an attachment to this material. I didn’t author it. And it predates the formal establishment of The Satanic Temple.
Q. Okay. Let me — let me ask you about some of the things. Who drafted the text on this page?
A. Well, there again, I do not know who drafted the text on this page.
Q. Okay. Do you know where the nine fundamental tenets came from?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know who came up with the nine fundamental tenets?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you have any idea what made these nine fundamental tenets fundamental?
A. No. Again, this — this material predates me. I’ve never been interested in it. It’s not been informative to the actual codification and establishment of The Satanic Temple.
Q. But according to this Web page — and, again, this would have been something that would have been publicly accessible at the time. So anyone who went searching for information about The Satanic Temple would have found this information, correct?
A. Sure, yes.
Q. Okay. And so, according to this Web page, each tenet is said to represent one of nine angels that was sent from heaven to oversee Earth, correct?
A. Correct, that’s what it says.
Q. Okay. But, again, in — in March 2013 and — and I take it by this time you were involved in The Satanic Temple, March 2013 being after — well, take — take my word for it for now the Rick Scott rally was in January 2013.
A. Sure.
Q. Okay. So March 2013 you would have been involved, correct, with The Satanic Temple?
A. Sure. Again, in the — in the — in the interest of time, you might just go through the transcripts of the Scottsdale case. We went over all of this, and I — and I was clear then —
Q. I —
A. — I — you know, I came in and I paid little attention to Web work; so I’m not sure how long this stuff was there. But I have no attachment to this material. I didn’t write it. There’s not much I can say about it except that it’s not been — it’s not been worthwhile material to me to inform the future direction of The Satanic Temple in any way.
Q. Okay. So and just so I — I’m clear, in March 2013 no one associated with The Satanic Temple really believed in any supernaturalistic theology, as far as you’re aware; correct?
A. Well, by March of 2013 there still wasn’t really many people associated with The Satanic Temple. There was Malcolm and I. And — and I can’t — can’t really give you a good idea of who else was — was part of it. But, like, Malcolm and I did not hold any supernatural beliefs.
(Exhibit 6 marked for identification.)
Q. Okay. All right. You can set that aside. I’m showing you Exhibit 6. And do you recognize this as an archive of The Satanic Temple Web page from December 12, 2013?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Who wrote the section, “A History of The Satanic Temple?”
A. I — I do not — I do not know. I don’t know who wrote that.
Q. Okay. Would Malcolm Jarry know?
A. He might.
Q. Okay. Who wrote the section, “Mission Statement”?
A. I — I do not know.
Q. Okay. How about the “Beliefs” section?
A. I do not — what — well, let me check the date on this again. Hold on. Now, due to the wording, I would say that this had to have been written at least in consultation with Malcolm or I, but I still couldn’t tell you who actually plugged the text into the Web site.
Q. Okay. And by that do you mean that you or Malcolm would have drafted the text?
A. Not necessarily, but it — I mean, it says we’re seeking to separate religion from superstition, which was something I was adamant we needed to do as soon as I — I came in and started having anything to do with it. So I would think at least in conversational consultation, whoever plugged in the text would have — would have made those, some of those changes in deference to what they had gained from contact with either one of us.
Q. Okay. And, as of December 12, 2013, the trappings of supernaturalism was still present on The Satanic Temple Web page; correct?
A. Well, you — I’m — I’m going back and looking at this just right now and seeing this evolution on the Web site. But it says explicitly in the Beliefs that The Satanic Temple seeks to separate religion from superstition. And to us supernatural beliefs fall within the category of superstition regardless of . . .
Q. Okay. And so take a look at the bottom of the page. And I believe we’re looking — this is under the Beliefs section. Look at the bottom there, with the italicized text. “God is supernatural and thus outside of the sphere of the physical.”
A. Correct.
Q. That’s the same language that appeared previously on The Satanic Temple Web page, correct?
A. Yeah. I haven’t gone back and looked at these things date by date; so I have — I’m not necessarily aware of the evolution of the Web site. But I see here it looks like you’re seeing conflicting messages. And you’re seeing, you know, the separation of religion from superstition while also seeing the statement “God is supernatural,” which might also indicate that there was some metaphorical use of terminology regarding “God is supernatural.” But I’m really not sure —
Q. Okay.
A. — what the overall thoughts were of — of whoever put the text in.
(Exhibit 7 marked for identification.)
Q. Okay. And you can set that aside. All right. Now I’m handing you what’s been marked as Exhibit 7. Do you recognize that as an archive of The Satanic Temple Web page from March 7, 2014?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And, if you look at the Beliefs section, it still has that italicized language; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Do you know who wrote the paragraph that comes after that italicized language?
A. And by that you mean starting where?
Q. “The Satanist harbors reasonable agnosticism.”
A. I do not know who put that together, but it does look like it’s in reference to opinions and words I’ve spoken.
Q. Okay. So you believe that you wrote this text?
A. I don’t believe that I wrote this text, but I — I — I’m certain I had influence on this text.
Q. Okay. And take a look at the Tenets section. Now, here there — the Tenets section lists seven tenets instead of nine, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. What prompted this change in the fundamental tenets?
A. Well, it looks like these are the tenets as we know them now; so I believe that’s what would have prompted the change. I think what we’re seeing here is the Web site being slowly updated. Because in the beginning the Web site wasn’t terribly important to us. It didn’t generate much traffic. Social media was certainly more where people came to see what The Satanic Temple was and what it was all about. And, for my part, I never really paid attention to the — the URL Web site, the — the discrete stand-alone Web site of The Satanic Temple.
Q. So — so what happened that you went from nine tenets to seven tenets? I mean, you lost a couple it sounds like or you — I mean, they are different tenets. And so — and they’re both called “fundamental.” And there’s a change here; so I’m trying to understand what happened to go from nine, these nine to these seven?
A. Well, we went from a generic placeholder Web site where text was just there to apparently hold a place to actually deliberating and codifying our beliefs as we — as we held them. So, therefore, we — we cohered the seven tenets.
(Exhibit 9 marked for identification.)
Q. Okay. You can set that one aside. Okay. And we’re going to go to Exhibit 9. So we’re skipping over what’s marked as 8. We’re going to go to 9. I’m handing it to you. Do you recognize this as the Frequently Asked Questions Web page from TheSatanicTemple.com?
A. Not immediately. I — I don’t understand what date this is from or . . .
Q. Okay.
A. Is this — is this current?
Q. This was printed on 2/12/2020 in the upper left-hand corner.
A. Oh, okay.
Q. And it may be that the formatting wasn’t — you know, that the — maybe the images and the formatting wasn’t preserved when it was printed.
A. Oh, sure. Okay. Yeah, no, I — I see the URL. That is our — our Web site.
Q. Okay.
A. I see the date.
Q. Okay. Good. So — so you recognize this as the Frequently Asked Questions Web page from TheSatanicTemple.com?
A. Correct, yeah.
Q. Okay. Take a look at Page 4 at the bottom. And there’s text there under the “What Do You Believe?” heading. And read this along as I read this out loud. It says: “We believe in reason, empathy, the pursuit of knowledge, and our Seven Tenets.” Did I read that correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Where did these seven tenets come from?
A. Malcolm and I were discussing the codification of beliefs that we believed in as The Satanic Temple. And I believe it was months we deliberated back and forth before we came up with what we felt were the optimal tenets, and that was — those were these seven tenets.
Q. Okay. And so you don’t — you — you didn’t receive these seven tenets in a revelation?
A. No.
Q. And neither did Malcolm Jarry? Nobody received these as a revelation of some kind or through some kind of —
A. If you — if by that you mean some kind of divine voice or there was some kind of supernatural insight, then — then no.
Q. Okay.
A. We reasoned through these and — and came up with them in that way.
Q. Okay. And so you reasoned through them. So these are — are based on purely rational considerations?
A. Well, that’s kind of a — kind of a loaded question. I mean, some of these things speak to ultimate concerns that are really impervious to scientific insight but that we think are as near as we can get to a reasonable position without deference to supernatural thought. But when it comes to principles like justice and things like that, that’s more of a quality of a kind of characteristic of a universal struggle in which we contextualize our presence in — and our existence and our works and our goals. And these things can’t be — can neither be validated nor disconfirmed by science; but, nonetheless, we feel like our opinions should be guided by the best scientific evidence of the day.
Q. Does The Satanic Temple still subscribe to the seven fundamental tenets?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are these the seven fundamental tenets that — are these the beliefs a person has agreed to in order to become a member of The Satanic Temple?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. These tenets leave a lot of room for interpretation by individual members, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Does The Satanic Temple prescribe any other beliefs other than these seven tenets?
A. Not — not codified as tenets, no.
Q. Okay. And explain — I’d ask you to explain what you mean by — by that?
A. Then I’d have to ask for a more — could you be more specific?
Q. Yeah, let — yeah, yeah. So my question is: Does The Satanic Temple prescribe any beliefs other than the seven fundamental tenets, and your answer was none that are prescr- — that are —
A. In order to — to claim membership within The Satanic Temple, it is required that you state a belief in following the seven tenets; but there is — there are n other barriers to membership. There — you don’t have to pledge belief in anything else.
Q. Okay. So you said, you know, these are — you’ve agreed these are — tenets are open to interpretation. And you expect that members will disagree with on another on a large number of important issues, right?
A. Yes. But I also agree that kind of deliberation, those kinds of conversations they have about best aligning themselves with the tenets are often very productive. And that kind of — and that kind of deliberation will often bring people closer to a productive truth.
Q. Okay. And so things from politics to metaphysics, Satanic Temple members will have different opinions on a wide range of issues; correct?
A. Correct, within certain restrictions. I don’t think the seven tenets leave so much room that you’re going to find views that are necessarily polar opposite on all things. I think you do come to some kind of, like, convergence point, but not one that’s — not one that’s unbendable or unwilling to open itself to discussion. And that’s by design.
Cave v. Thurston
(Case 4:18-cv-00342-KGB)
Exhibit 32 Misicko Deposition — Document #260, Attachment #50
March 11, 2020
Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of
Case 0:19-cv-01122
Exhibit(s) 1-42, and 44-45 — Document #84, Attachment #1
Nov. 20, 2020 – deposition of Douglas Alexander Misicko as “Lucien Greaves”
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the record. This begins Media Unit Number 1 in the deposition of Lucien Greaves in the matter of The Satanic Temple versus the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. Today is Friday, November 20th, 2020, and the time is 9:02 a.m. The videographer is Cameron Beldon and the court reporter is Nathan D. Engen. I’m not related to any party in this action, nor am I financially interested in the outcome. Counsel and all present in the room as well as all attending remotely will now state their appearances and affiliations for the record.
MR. KEZHAYA: Matt Kezhaya for TST.
MR. MILLS: Monty Mills for the City of Belle Plaine.
COURT REPORTER: Nate Engen, court reporter.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter please swear the witness?
COURT REPORTER: If you raise your right hand for me, I’ll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
THE WITNESS: I do.
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q Good Morning, Mr. Greaves. I’ll try to take my time asking questions and pause as the court reporter asked us to do. I ask you to do the same. Provide a verbal response versus, you know, a nod of the head or the shake of the head. And we’ll get through this. Now, Lucien Greaves, is that a pseudonym?
A. It is.
Q. And what is your real legal name?
MR. KEZHAYA: I object to this question under the association privilege. Lucien, from time to time, I’m going to be making objections. Unless I say the word ‘privilege’ in my objection, just assume that you’re going to answer it. If I feel like it’s unclear, I’ll direct you specifically to answer it. In this case, do not answer this question.
MR. MILLS: Well, Counsel, we agreed that we would just mark this part of the transcript confidential, and I could go ahead and stipulate that his answer will be confidential. But I’d like to have his legal name stated for the record, so we know we have the right person giving testimony today.
MR. KEZHAYA: I am asserting the association privilege. Do not answer that.
MR. MILLS: So, you’re backing off of our stipulation that we would mark his answer of what his real name is on the record on the deposition.
MR. KEZHAYA: You’re — we did not say that.
MR. MILLS: You’re backing away from that?
MR. KEZHAYA: We stipulate to a protective order, and I specifically said that I am reserving the right to raise an associational privilege objection at depositions.
MR. MILLS: We talked about marking the part of the — the deposition confidential where he gives us his legal name.
MR. KEZHAYA: Correct, but that doesn’t waive privilege. Those are two different issues.
MR. MILLS: So, you’re unwilling to allow the witness to answer the question of whether — what his real name is.
MR. KEZHAYA: That is correct.
MR. MILLS: And so, it could be that this is an actor playing the role of Lucien Greaves here today?
MR. KEZHAYA: That is not correct.
MR. MILLS: Well, we don’t know.
MR. KEZHAYA: I —
By Mr. Mills:
Q. — Mr. Greaves, is Lucien Greaves on your driver’s license?
MR. KEZHAYA: Don’t answer that.
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Is Lucien Greaves on your passport?
MR. KEZHAYA: Don’t answer that.
MR. MILLS: What’s the [cuts off]
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q So, today, when I — when I refer to the cube display, do you understand, I am referring to this that we’ve — that I have referred to in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3?
A. Yes. Thank you.
Q. Okay. I just wanted to level set on some terms. That way, we’re all sort of speaking the same language. I appreciate that. So, what is your understanding of why the Satanic Temple needed to obtain from the City, a permit, in order to place the cube display in the park.
A. Well, we wanted to do this legally, of course. We weren’t going to dump it off unannounced and — and — and then risk it being carted away and — and junked. We — we wanted the understanding of the local community that it would be there. So, therefore, we sought permission before constructing it.
Q. And what is your understanding of why the Satanic Temple wanted a permit to place the cube display in the park?
A. Well, it was our understanding that that was the way to — the — the proper procedure whereby we could have our display in the park.
Q. Where is the cube display located today?
A. Today, it is in our headquarters in Salem.
Q. And where are the headquarters in Salem?
A. On 64 Bridge Street in Salem.
Q. And is — is the headquarters — is that also — is the Salem Art Gallery also located there?
A. It is. Correct.
Q. So, the — the — the Satanic Temple shares the same headquarters as the Salem Art Gallery?
A. Well, the — the — the — technically, the head quarters is upstairs, and the Art Gallery is the lower level.
Q. I see. So, maybe I should have asked you questions about the building. So, it’s 64 Bridge Street; there’s a building. How many levels does it have?
A. Well, there’s a basement. And then, there’s a first floor, and then, there’s a second floor, and then, there’s an attic.
…
A. Correct.
Q. And the applicant here — who was the Page 45 applicant?
A. How do — how do you mean?
Q. Well, is it your understanding that a Douglas Mesner signed the application on behalf of the Satanic Temple?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So, in signing the affirmation, Douglas Mesner agreed that the Satanic Temple would comply with the limited public forum policy of the City of Belle Plaine; correct?
A. Correct.
…
Q. Okay. And so, in signing and going back to Exhibit 2, is that affirmation — in signing that affirmation in the permit application, a Douglas Mesner agreed on behalf of the Satanic Temple that the Temple would comply with that limited forum policy; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And there’s another part of this affirmation, if you will, this — at the top of — of Page 4, Exhibit 2, I — I want to zero in on the second part of that. The applicant also agreed that the Satanic Temple would indemnify the City against any and all claims, demands, or liabilities arising from the issuance of the permit; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And so, in signing this affirmation, Douglas Mesner agreed on behalf of the Satanic Temple to indemnify the City;is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you have an understanding of what ‘indemnification’ means?
A. I have an idea.
Q. And what is your idea?
A. My idea is that nothing in this document protects the City, allowing them to engage in viewpoint discrimination to the point where they can willfully shut down a forum just to deny equal access or free expression of another party.
Q. And that’s your understanding of indemnification?
A. Yeah.
…
Q. Okay. And what was your understanding of what Malcolm Jarry stated when he stated, “We have to get the statue afterwards, and can then sell it or bring it to Salem?
A. I — I’m sorry. I’m not sure what is — what needs clarification.
Q. Well, let’s go about it this way. Did you understand that when Malcolm Jarry’s e-mail refers to the statue, it’s referring to the cube display we’ve been discussing today?
A. Correct.
Q. Because the subject line of this e-mail is Belle Plaine Minnesota Veteran’s Memorial; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So, what was your understanding of what Malcolm Jarry’s statement, “We have to get the statue afterwards, and can then sell it or bring it to Salem?
A. I — I don’t know. I — I — I couldn’t say. I’d have to — I’d have to ask him. I — I assume…
Q Are you — I am asking what your understanding of his e-mail is.
A I’m not sure what he means by ‘afterword’. So, I don’t have a clear understanding of what that is, unless he was assuming that after a year or two, that the display needed to — needed to come down.
10 Q Okay.
…
Q. So, as of July 15th, 2017, you were planning to put the cube display at the — TST’s headquarters building?
A. My recollection is that we had to put it somewhere. We weren’t going to leave it with the fabricator and — and we were taking it into our possession, and we were doing that by putting it into the house.
Q. And would it — and would it be in the house as part of the — the art exhibit?
A. Correct.
Q. And does — does that art gallery — do they charge admission to get in?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is the — the fee to come into the art gallery?
A. I believe it’s 12 — 12 dollars.
Q. Is that 12 dollars per person?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So, anyone who wanted to see the cube display as an exhibit in the TST headquarters in Salem would pay 12 dollars to — to go see it?
A. Correct.
Q. Right. And have people taken up that opportunity to pay admission?
A. People have paid admission to get into the Salem Art Gallery.
Q. Do you have an — an understanding of how many per month pay admission to go to the art gallery?
A. No. It — it radically varies by the month, depending on how many tourists are around. October is the busiest season.
Q. October? Is that just a good season, like, weather-wise for that part?
A. For — people come to Salem for Halloween Town.
Q. I see. And — and people would pay admission to go into the TST headquarters building to view exhibits like the cube display?
A. Correct.
Q. In 2017 in October — do you have an estimate of how many people viewed the cube display in October?
A. That, I do not — I — I do not know.
Q. Do you track annual numbers of how many admissions the headquarters collects?
A. I — I do not. Personally, I do not. I do very little in regards to the Salem Art Gallery aspect of things. I essentially — I essentially don’t touch that. That’s — that’s a better posed question to Alex or Malcolm.
…
Q. Exhibit 15 is a series of e-mails you see on the screen there, dated July 19, 2017. Is the subject line of the e-mail string, “Monument”?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your understanding that the — that subject is the same cube display we’ve been talking about today?
A. I’m assuming yes.
Q. Looking at the e-mail from Ash Astaroth, what did you understand Ash Astaroth to mean when he stated, “I’d like to get it here ASAP while the news is still hot. It will be a great attraction to add”?
A. I’m not sure what — what — what — what are you trying to clarify?
Q. I’m just asking, what do you understand him to mean in his e-mail when he said, “I’d like to get it here ASAP while the news is still hot. It would be a great attraction to add”?
A. To my mind, it’s — it’s self-explanatory. That’s why I’m — I’m asking what — what the clarification is.
Q. I’m asking you, what is your understanding of it?
A. My understanding is that he wanted to get the monument there ASAP while the news was still hot, because it would be a great attraction to add.
Q. So, you agreed with him that the cube display would be a great attraction?
A. No. I’m telling you that that’s what he said, and that’s what I understand him to have said.
Q. Oh. Okay. My next question is, do you agree with him that the cube display was a great attraction to add to the TST headquarters gallery?
A. It makes sense that it would go in the gallery. And then, it serves a function there, sure.
Q. Do you agree with him that it would be a, quote, “Great attraction”?
A. I don’t know how we’re measuring ‘great attraction’. I don’t know how many people would actually go specifically to see such a monument. But I think there would be better odds of people wanting to see it when the time they would go to visit would be in closer proximity to the time that the monument was in the news.
Q. And in the five o’clock e-mail on July 19th, 2017 — it’s from a redacted e-mail address. Do you think that you sent this e-mail?
A. I could very well have sent that e-mail.
Q. What did you mean when you stated, “That’s all the more reason to put it indoors”?
A. I — I don’t know. I mean, today, I can’t imagine having it outdoors. I think the weather would damage it.
Q. And was it because you could charge admission to view it — the cube display as an exhibition in the gallery?
A. Well, now I think it goes back to Ash’s comment that the previous artist’s stuff was going to be gone. And so, it was all the more reason to put objects inside the house.
Q. What is — what — you reference a previous monument would be gone. What — where — what — what do you base your understanding of that on?
A In the e-mail from 4:55 p.m., July 19th, 2017, Ash said, “Castiglia’s stuff leaves soon.” Castiglia was an artist who had an exhibit in the Salem Art 25 Gallery. So, my understanding on looking at this is that the gallery was going to be bereft of art. And so, that would be all the more reason to put any acquisitions inside the house.
Q. And the cube display would be an — an exhibit that you could put in the gallery to replace what was leaving?
A. Correct.
Deposition of Cevin D. Soling as “Malcolm Jarry” (Nov. 23, 2020)
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Good morning. Please state your name for the record.
A. Malcolm Jarry
…
Q. So now I want to turn to Exhibit 2 of the complaint, please. And, Mr. Jarry, this Exhibit 2 has several pages. The first page is the permit letter granting. And then the subsequent pages include payment of the fee and then the — the application that was provided. And I want to turn to the second page of the application. And you see there’s an — at the — near the top, there’s an applicant’s signature there. It’s dated 2/23/17. Do you see that, Mr. Jarry, on the screen?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And who signed the application on behalf of the applicant?
A. Um, I’m not sure if that’s — well, I guess it’s not privileged. It says the — the name is — written there is Douglas Mesner.
Q. And did he have authority to sign on behalf of the applicant?
A. Yes.
Q. And when The Satanic Temple applied for a permit under the Belle Plaine limited public forum policy, The Satanic Temple agreed to comply with the Belle Plaine limited public policy; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So in signing this affirmation, Doug Mesner agreed, on behalf of The Satanic Temple, that The Satanic Temple would comply with the limited public forum policy of the City of Belle Plaine; correct?
A. Correct.
…
A. Reason Alliance is a nonprofit whose mission is to promote tenets of The Satanic Temple.
Q. And why did Reason Alliance apply for the permit instead of The Satanic Temple?
A. Because one of the requirements for the statue is insurance. It had to be insured, and you have to be able to provide insurance.
Q. And why would Reason Alliance provide insurance versus The Satanic Temple providing insurance?
A. Because Reason Alliance is able to obtain insurance.
Q. And is The Satanic Temple unable to obtain insurance?
A. There are insurance companies are unwilling to provide insurance for The Satanic Temple.
…
Q. I want to turn to the — the next pageof Exhibit 6. It’s Bates Stamp PLF00012. Looking at the top — or you’re on this e-mail string; correct, Mr. Jarry?
A. That is correct.
Q. And I wanted to look at the e-mail at the bottom at 1:23 p.m. Is this e-mail from Lucien Greaves?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Could it be anyone else?
A. That’s why I believe it’s Lucien Greaves. I can’t imagine it would be anyone else.
Q. What was your understanding of the statement, “Hopefully, it doesn’t detract from anything but increases funding overall due to high profile”?
A. Oh. I think it’s — it’s because most of our activities we rely on — on donors. And I think we were concerned that another fundraiser would — you know, there is — there is a zero sum to — to fundraising to a certain degree. It’s not 100 percent zero sum, but you can only go back to donors just so often to support our activities and the detraction would be detracting or taking away funds that would be used for — for other operations.
Q. Do you have an understanding of why a high profile would increase Satanic Temple’s funding?
A. It seems self-evident, but a — an activity and action that has — that garners a lot of attention will have an easier time attracting donors who support the religious mission of the organization.
Q. Mr. Jarry, did you ever exchange text messages with Lucien Greaves about Belle Plaine?
A. I — I avoid text messages for anything other than — you know, anything that would just be some kind of directing. I don’t do — I don’t do any kind of business over my text messages.
Q. And — and so is your testimony that you never exchanged text messages with Lucien Greaves about Belle Plaine?
A. Any text with Lucien over Belle Plaine would have been — I don’t even — I don’t recall any — any — any text about Belle Plaine. Other than — you know, any — the only thing I can speculate is — would be to — I — you know, I — generally, I avoid business on my texts because I — I can’t reply to anything. I don’t have any information in front of me. So if there was any discussion of Belle Plaine, it would have been, you know, a question that would have been to direct something. But I can’t recall. You know, if it were, it would be — it is — it is not my policy to — you know, to engage in any kind of business things. But it’s possible Belle Plaine might have been mentioned in some — in passing in some kind of way.
Q. When you say, “Direct something”, what do you mean by that?
A. Can you — can you — I — I guess I —
Q. — you just said, if I exchanged texts with Lucien Greaves about Belle Plaine, it would be to direct something. And I’m asking you: What do you mean by, “Direct something”?
A. Oh, it wouldn’t be to direct something. It would be if Belle Plaine had come up in a text message, it would have been asking, you know, to — to direct — to something that would, that would, then — if it was formally discussed, it would be discussed in an e-mail or over the phone. If there had been a text, it might be whether — whether he had — I don’t know whether he knew of any — any new developments, in which case he might reply yes or no. But I don’t know. I — I can’t recall. I just know that I don’t, you know, make it a policy just for practical reasons, not anything beyond that, just to not engage with business over texts. It just — you know, it just gets lost, and I have no string to follow up on anything. It’s just another place to have to look to follow up on, on something that can’t access documents.
THE REPORTER: Keep your voice up, Malcolm.
By Mr. Mills:
Q Did you search for text messages that were responsive to the City’s discovery requests?
A Oh, there was — there was no — there was no reason or need to because I [section cuts off]
…
Q. Okay. And so then we go to Exhibit 8, and that’s Bates stamped PLF00021. So it’s sort of the next page, if you will, in the stack of documents.
A. Okay.
Q. And this one is dated April 13th, 2017; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And so there’s this gap between March 2nd, 2017 and April 13th, 2017. And my question to you is: Did you have any communications about Belle Plaine or the cube display between March 2nd and April 13th?
A. It’s possible — it’s very possible then if nothing was — all the e-mails were shared, so it’s very — it’s very likely no communication — so there was no written communication. I don’t know if Doug and I — if Lucien and I (breaking up) but all — all the e-mails were shared.
Q. Do you recall conversations between March 2nd and April 13th about Belle Plaine or the cube display?
A. I have no recollection of any conversations taking place at that time.
REPORTER’S NOTE: Whereupon, Defendant’s Deposition Exhibit Number 9 was marked for identification.
MR. MILLS: Let’s turn to Exhibit 9, please.
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Mr. Jarry, do you see Exhibit 9 on the screen there?
A Yes, I do.
Q. And this says it’s an invoice for services; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it’s from Spectacle Films, Inc.?
A. Where do you see that?
Q. You might have to scroll to the bottom.
A. Oh. I see. Okay.
Q. And so is this invoice from Spectacle Films, Inc.?
A. No.
Q. Who is it from? Or what?
A. These — there were fees that were actually paid to — to Lucien for — for his work in overseeing the development of the — of the monument.
Q. And — and so where is Lucien’s name on this?
A. I assume his name is at the top of the document.
Q. Oh, the redaction?
A. Yes.
Q. The redaction, okay. And this is a bill to Reason Alliance, slash, TST?
A. It’s — it’s to Reason Alliance.
Q. And there’s a slash, TST?
A. Correct; that is…
Q. What does that mean?
A. It’s a reference to — for clarification of the services.
Q. What does — what does TST stand for?
A. TST stands for The Satanic Temple.
Q. So this is a bill to Reason Alliance, slash, The Satanic Temple?
A. It is a bill to Reason Alliance referencing work performed for The Satanic Temple.
Q. Okay. Because the — it says, “The work adheres to guidelines set forth by Reason Alliance and TST”; is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you have an understanding of why Spectacle Films, Inc. appears at the bottom of this invoice?
A. Yes. That would be an error. It was — I was assisting Lucien in drafting his — his invoice. And I must have taken an existing document that must have been in the footer of the document, and it should have been deleted. So it’s there erroneously.
Q. What is Spectacle Films?
A. Spectacle Films is an entity that I own.
Q. So you own Spectacle Films, Inc.?
A. That is correct.
Q. Does anyone else hold ownership interest in it?
A. No.
Q. And so this is a — a business you own. Does it have a relationship with either Reason Alliance or The Satanic Temple?
A. No.
Q. So this invoice, you indicated, is for work that Lucien Greaves performed?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the fee is $4,000?
A That is correct.
Q. And was this $4,000 paid to him?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And who paid it?
A. Reason Alliance.
Q. If there are no communications about Belle Plaine or the cube display between March 2nd and April 13th, why would there be an invoice for services issued during that time period?
A. There were no communications during that time that were involved in any e-mail, and any communication involving Belle Plaine would have been handled by — you know, Lucien may have made phone calls to — to various parties. But the totality of — of all e-mails of those was, was, you know, was provided.
Q. So there are no e-mails during this time period, but your testimony is they would have all been done by telephone?
A. If there were any communications at that time with Lucien and any — and any related parties. And anything that was done by e-mail was provided.
Q. But not — no text messages have been provided; correct?
A. No text messages have been provided by — by me; that is correct.
Douglas Alexander Misicko as “Lucien Greaves” (Nov. 30, 2020)
Q. Who are the directors of the Satanic Temple?
A. Myself and Malcolm Jarry.
Q. How many employees does the Satanic Temple have?
A. As for regular employees, I don’t really think there are any.
Q. Was Ash Astaroth ever an employee of the Satanic Temple?
A. Ash was an employee of the Salem Art Gallery.
Q. Is the Salem Art Gallery affiliated with the Satanic Temple?
A. It’s the gallery contained within Satanic Temple’s headquarters.
Q. Is the Salem Art — Art Gallery incorporated?
A. I think the Salem Art Gallery is an LLC.
Q. Who owns the Salem Art Gallery?
A. Malcolm and myself.
Q. Who are the directors of the Salem Art Gallery?
A. Me and Malcolm.
Q. When was the Salem Art Gallery established?
A. I don’t remember. I think 2016.
Q. What is the National Counsel of the Satanic Temple?
A. It’s a deliberative body we have to oversee the chapters we have around the world, to either approve any public face events they’re going to do or — or not approve of them.
Q. Can the two directors of the Satanic Temple override decisions of the National Counsel?
A. Yes.
Q. What is Reason Alliance Limited?
A. Reason Alliance is a nonprofit we — a nonprofit we run that has the stated mission of supporting the mission of the Satanic Temple.
Q. Is the Salem Art Gallery a nonprofit?
A. No.
Q. When was the Reason Alliance Limited started?
A. I — I don’t remember. 2016? 2017? Thereabouts.
Q. When was the Satanic Temple started?
A. Satanic Temple was founded in 2013.
Q. Who are the directors of Reason Alliance Limited?
A. Malcolm Jarry and I.
Q. So, Reason Alliance and the Satanic Temple have the same directors?
A. Correct.
Q. And do the Satanic Temple and Reason Alliance share the same building headquarters?
A. Reason Alliance doesn’t have a specified headquarters.
Q. Where is the Satanic Temple’s headquarters?
A. 64 Bridge Street in Massachusetts. Salem.
Q. Does the Satanic Temple own the building at 64 Bridge Street?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long has the Satanic Temple owned that building?
A. I think we got that about 2016.
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q. The Satanic Temple owns the building at 64 Bridge Street; correct?
A. Correct. You — you already asked since — since what time, and I don’t — I don’t — I’m not — I’m not certain.
Q. Does the Salem Art Gallery lease space from the Satanic Temple?
A. No. There’s not finances — like, rental finances being exchanged between the two.
Q. What is the — the relationship, then, between the — the gallery and the Satanic Temple?
A. Well, I’m not sure exactly how you would characterize it. The — the gallery is — resides within the Satanic Temple headquarters, and it’s where people come to visit the Satanic Temple headquarters and see exhibitions.
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q. So, looking at Exhibit 2 — and this was also Exhibit 2 to the complaint.
A. Okay.
Q. I want to turn to Page 3 of the exhibit, please. And towards the top of this permit application, there’s a line that says, “Applicant.” Do you see that there?
A. Yes.
Q. And the applicant on this permit application is listed as Reason Alliance Limited; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And below the applicant line, there’s an address line. Do you see that there?
A. Yes.
Q. And the address for Reason Alliance Limited on this permit application is listed as, “C/O the Satanic Temple, 64 Bridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts.” Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is Reason Alliance Limited listed as the applicant on the permit application?
A. I’m not sure.
Q. So, on behalf of the Satanic Temple, you don’t know why Reason Alliance Limited is listed as the applicant on this permit application?
A. Yeah. That’s — that’s correct. That’s — that’s an entity we have that’s — is something we use.
Q. And when you say ‘we’, you’re referring to the Satanic Temple?
A. I’m referring to Malcolm and I.
Q. And Malcolm and you are the directors of the Satanic Temple?
A. Correct.
Q. And you’re also directors of Reason Alliance Limited?
A. Correct.
Q. Why is the address for the applicant, Reason Alliance Limited, on the permit application listed as, “C/O the Satanic Temple, 64 Bridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts?”
A. Well, it’s a convenient place for us to get our mail.
Q. And when you say ‘our mail’, are you referring to the Reason Alliance Limited mail?
A. I’m referring to mail that’s best opened by Malcolm or I.
Q. Who regularly checks the mail? Is it you, or Malcolm?
A. It’s both of us.
Q. So, you review the mail together?
A. We don’t necessarily review the mail together, but we’re — we both go there often enough and — and look at the mail individually.
Q. So, referring again to this permit application, Exhibit 2, why was the Satanic Temple not listed as the applicant?
A. I really don’t know.
Q. So, testifying today on behalf of the Satanic Temple, you do not know why the Satanic Temple is not listed as the applicant on this permit application?
A. I also don’t know why the Satanic Temple would be listed as the applicant as opposed to Reason Alliance. So, it really makes no — no difference to me.
Q. Why does is it make no difference to you?
A. Because Reason Alliance has the stated mission of supporting projects of the Satanic Temple. It may as well be Reason Alliance or the Satanic Temple.
Q. So, if I am understanding you, it makes no difference whether the entity is Reason Alliance Limited as the applicant or whether it’s the Satanic Temple as the applicant?
A. No, because we were clearly — we were clearly sending our application on behalf of the Satanic Temple either way.
MR. MILLS: I’d like to turn to Page 4 of the Exhibit 2,
please.
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Mr. Greaves, do you see at — at the top, there’s what I’ll call an affirmation paragraph. Do you see that there?
A. Yes.
Q. And then, there’s an applicant signature. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this permit application signed by Douglas Mesner?
A. Correct.
Q. When Douglas Mesner signed the permit application, did he sign on behalf of Reason Alliance Limited or the Satanic Temple?
A. I think he signed on behalf of the permit application.
Q. He signed on behalf of the permit? That’s not my question. My question is, when he signed the permit application, did he sign the application on behalf of Reason Alliance Limited or the Satanic Temple.
A. I think he was just signing the permit application without making those distinctions in his mind.
Q. So, in his mind, there’s no distinction between Reason Alliance Limited or the Satanic Temple?
A. I think there was just a permit application.
Q. And the applicant was Reason Alliance Limited; correct?
A. Yes, on behalf of the Satanic Temple.
Q. So, when Douglas Mesner signed the permit application, did he sign on behalf of both Reason Alliance Limited and the Satanic Temple?
A. He signed the permit application to have the monument put in Belle Plaine.
Q. I’m just trying to figure out who he signed the permit application on behalf of?
A. I guess that depends on how you read the application itself.
Q. Right. And I am asking you, on behalf of the — the — you’re testifying on behalf of the Satanic Temple — what your understanding is of the application?
A. My understanding, as I sit here today, looking at this now, is that the signature applies for Reason Alliance on behalf of the Satanic Temple.
Q. So, if I’m following you — I just want to make sure I’m understanding it. Douglas Mesner signed the permit on behalf of Reason Alliance Limited, who was applying on behalf of the Satanic Temple?
A. Correct.
Q. And so, when the affirmation says, “I will comply with limited public forum policy,” Douglas Mesner is saying that on behalf of Reason Alliance Limited, on behalf of the Satanic Temple?
A. Sure. Yes.
Q. Is Douglas Mesner signing this affirmation on his own behalf?
A. He’s — he’s signing on behalf of parties — he’s signing on behalf of both. I — I mean, it’s — it’s in — it’s in the document itself. I’m– I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for here.
Q. Okay. In any event, let’s go to the first page of Exhibit 2. The City approved the application for a permit; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the first page of Exhibit 2 is the approval letter from the City; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And this letter is addressed to a Mr. Mesner; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it says that, “The City of Belle Plaine has approved your request for a permit,” and so on; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And the City addressed this permit approval letter to Reason Alliance Limited, C/O the Satanic Temple, 64 Bridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that address that the City used was consistent with the applicant and address listed in the permit application; correct?
A. Correct.
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Is it true that the Satanic Temple charges admission for entry into the gallery at the headquarters?
A. Correct.
Q. And how much does the Satanic Temple charge for admission?
A. 12 dollars per general public. Five dollars for card-carrying members of the Satanic Temple.
Q. What is the total amount of administration fees collected from persons entering the gallery and viewing the cube display from July 2017 to the present date?
A. Let’s see… $1,600 for card-carrying members. $180,400 for all others.
Q. How many people paid to enter the gallery from July of 2017 to the present date?
A. Let’s see… I don’t have a number for that.
Q. What documents did you review to determine those dollar figures?
A. I didn’t — I consulted with Malcolm.
Q. And did he review documents to determine those dollar figures?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what documents he consulted — [docuemnt cuts off]
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q. This Resolution 17-090 — this is the recision you were referring to?
A. Correct.
Q. And turning back to Exhibit 2 — I want to go to Page 4. Just want to confirm that, in the application, the applicant agreed to comply with the Belle Plaine limited public forum policy; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And in signing this affirmation here, Douglas Mesner also agreed on behalf of the applicant to indemnify the City against any and all claims, demands, or liabilities arising from the issuance of the permit; correct?
A. Correct.
MR. MILLS: I’d like to turn to Exhibit 4, please.
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Do you recognize this as the certificate of liability insurance?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the certificate of liability insurance, the Satanic Temple is not listed as the insured; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Why is Reason Alliance Limited listed as the insured on the certificate of liability insurance?
A. Because — because Reason Alliance was used on behalf of the Satanic Temple.
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Exhibit 9 is a document, Bates number PLF000124. Do you see the document on the screen there?
A. I do.
Q. And at the bottom, it says, “From Spectacle Films, Inc.” Is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. What is the Satanic Temple’s relationship with Spectacle Films, Inc.?
A. That’s an entity that belongs to Malcolm Jarry.
Q. Does the Satanic Temple have a relationship with Spectacle Films?
A. No.
Q. Why is this invoice sent to Reason Alliance slash TST?
A. It was a fee for services.
Q. And what are the services?
A. The services related to the facilitation of construction of the veteran’s memorial monument.
Q. And who did the work that’s set forth in this invoice?
A. I believe that was me.
Q. So, Lucien Greaves did the — the work itemizing this invoice?
A. Correct. Yeah.
Q. And this invoice is dated April 2, 2017?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the hourly rate for those services? [cuts off]
…
Q. Maybe you could look at them both at the same time. Or we can
— I don’t know if we could put them on the screen back and forth. There’s Exhibit 28 on the screen right now.
A. The transaction ID is cut off. But I’m not sure if it’s the same. It could be. Okay. Okay. Those are the same transaction IDs. These are the same document.
Q. I think we just flipped to 29 now. I think that was 28 you’re looking at. Now it’s 21.
A. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, those are two separate payments for 2,000 dollars.
Q. So, Exhibit 29 is not a duplicate of Exhibit 28?
A. Correct.
Q. What is the Satanic Temple’s understanding of this transaction?
A. It — that it’s another 2,000 dollar payment.
Q. And who paid the 2,000 dollars?
A. The Satanic Temple.
Q. And who was the 2,000 dollar payment sent to?
A. I’m assuming it would be to Chris Andres, because — because Chris Andres was paid a total of 4,000 dollars.
Q. And the Satanic Temple also paid 4,000 dollars to Lucien Greaves?
A. I — I don’t believe it did.
MR. MILLS: If we could turn back to Exhibit 9, please?
By Mr. Mills:
Q. I understood the Satanic Temple paid Lucien Greaves 4,000 dollars when we discussed this document. Did I misunderstand your testimony about that?
A. I believe that was paid to the name of Doug Mesner.
Q. So, the Exhibit 9 — the 4,000 dollar fee for services — I just want to make sure we’re clear on this. The Satanic Temple paid that to Doug Mesner?
A. I’m not sure. It doesn’t matter either way. It was — it was a 4,000 dollar payment to — to me.
Q. And then, when we were looking at exhibit 28 and 29, you testified that — I want to make sure I’m clear on our testimony. The Satanic Temple paid 4,000 dollars to Chris Andres?
A. Correct.
Q. And that’s what these invoices reflect?
A I assume so, because I don’t know what else they would be for, given the associated costs.
Q. Did the Satanic Temple make two separate 4,000 dollar payments to each, Chris Andres and Doug Mesner?
A. It appears there was one 4,000 dollar payment to Doug Mesner and two 2,000 dollar payments to, most likely, Chris Andres.
Q. Is Chris Andres a different person than Doug Mesner?
A. Yes.
MR. MILLS: Let’s turn to page — or exhibit — sorry. Exhibit
30, please.
REPORTER’S NOTE: Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit Number 30
was marked for identification
By Mr. Mills:
Q. This is a two-page exhibit, Bates number PLF000129-130. What is the Satanic Temple’s understanding of this document?
A. That it was a 1,000 dollar payment for the design fee paid to Chris Andres.
Q. And in this, how much — is this a separate request for money than the documents — than the payment transaction documents we were just looking at?
A. I — I don’t know. It’s a — it’s — it’s a request. So, that might not have been — that — that might not be what the payment was.
Q. I want to make sure I understood. You previously testified that the Satanic Temple paid a total of 4,000 dollars to Chris Andres for the cube display at this time?
A. Correct.
Q. And it didn’t pay any more than that 4,000 dollars?
A. My understanding is that we paid a [section cuts off]
…
By Mr. Mills:
Q. We have Exhibit 32. Do you see it on the screen?
[A.] Yes.
Q. And this is the Satanic Temple’s initial disclosures?
A. Yes.
MR. MILLS: And if we could scroll down, please, to the next
Page 115 page?
By Mr. Mills:
Q There’s a heading. It’s titled, “Individuals with Discoverable Knowledge.” Do you see that there?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first name listed is Malcolm Jarry?
A. Correct.
Q. And the second name listed is Douglas Mesner?
A. Correct.
Q. Is Douglas Mesner a pseudonym?
A. Yes.
Q. So, Douglas — okay. And that was a yes? Douglas Mesner is a pseudonym?
A. Yes.
Q. So, when…
MR. MILLS: If — if we could go to, for example, Exhibit 10? At Page 12, please.
By Mr. Mills:
Q. Do you see Exhibit 12, Page 10 pulled 1 up there? It’s Bates stamped PLF00033?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it the Satanic Temple’s understanding —
REPORTER’S NOTE: Whereupon, a discussion is conducted off the record.
MR. MILLS: Let me try that again. Doing the best we can with the technology here. Okay. Try this again.
By Mr. Mills:
Q. So, the redacted e-mail address — is it the Satanic Temple’s understanding that that redaction is of a Douglas Mesner e-mail address?
A. It may be.
Q. And that Douglas Mesner name is a pseudonym?
A. Yes.
…
A. [previous cut off] I really have no idea how we would search text messages; how we would find specific topics in text messages. Or how we could expect to preserve text messages from four years ago. This, I genuinely do not understand. If — if there’s something about text messages I — I uniquely don’t understand here, I’m willing to hear it. But as I sit here listening to this now, these — these questions about text messages seem — seem terribly unreasonable; And maybe that’s due to some limited understanding of mine, given how text messages are stored, either preserved, or deleted, or not. But my understanding of text messages in my mind, they’re very transient and they don’t exist for me from one phone to the next. And I don’t believe that there is a repository of — of text messages where I could go back and — and see, in hard copy, every single text message with people. I could be wrong, but in reading the document and in — in seeing something like text messages, that just seems to me something that is making sure that there’s no limitations on the request, but not a serious request that somebody can be thought to fulfill after four years.
Q. Did the Satanic Temple undertake any effort at all to collect and produce text messages?
A I have no capability as as far as I’m aware to go back to text messages in this time.
MR. MILLS: Let’s turn to the credit funding or fund-raising documents.
By Mr. Mills:
Q. What efforts did the Satanic Temple undertake to collect and produce documents related to the — the fund-raising done in relation to the cube display for Belle Plaine?
A. We produced — we produced the documents we produced. The…
Q. Did the Satanic Temple produce any documents related to the — the fund-raising?
A. Oh. We produced anything that was not public facing, including the e-mails that discussed fund-raising.
Q. Where — would there be — have been e-mails with Indiegogo to set up the fund-raiser?
A. No. Indiegogo is just kind of a third-party site that manages fund-raising. You set up an account, and then you use the back end page to set the parameters for your incentives, state the goal in what they call the story behind the fund-raising campaign. It doesn’t require content with representatives from Indiegogo.
Q. Did the Satanic Temple make any efforts to collect documents related to the Indiegogo fund-raising?
A. Beyond the documents we produced, no.
Q. Would the Indiegogo fund-raising documents — would they have mentioned the cube display?
A. Well, which — which documents?
Q. The — the — you said there was a story that you put up. If I understand the process correctly, on — the0 Indiegogo, you said there was a story1 page?
A. Right. Remember previously, you asked if the Indiegogo page described the monument. In — in as such of that page labelled ‘Story’, it describes the monument and its purpose.
Q. Does this page also mention Belle Plaine?
A. I believe so. Yes.
…
Q. Okay. Does the Satanic Temple have a cell phone?
A. No.
Q. Does the Satanic Temple pay for Lucien Greaves’s cell phone?
A. No.
Q. Does the Satanic Temple pay for Lucien Greaves’s data plan?
A. No.
The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation
(Case No. 5:22-cv-05033)
Feb. 2, 2023: Exhibit 1 — Document #58, Attachment #1 – Videotaped Deposition of “Malcolm Jarry”
BY MS. KEITH-BOLDEN:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Jarry. Jarry? Am I getting that right now? Jarry?
A. Jarry. Jarry.
Q. Jarry.
A. It’s a short A.
Q. We probably won’t pronounce it the same anyway, given our different geographical locations. Could you state your name for the record, please?
A. Malcolm Jarry.
Q. Is that your legal name?
A. That is a pseudonym I use.
Q. Why do you use that pseudonym?
A. Because the work I do is — there are — there are many unhinged people who are — are threatened by our — the name of our organization.
Q. Are you willing to provide your legal name to us here today?
MR. KEZHAYA: Object — okay.
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Two, that I can remember.
Feb 3. 2023: Exhibit 2 — Document #58, Attachment #2 – Videotaped Deposition of Corporated Representatiove for The Satanic Temple, Inc. Lucien Greaves (Pseudonym)
LUCIEN GREAVES, (PSEUDONYM), called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:
THE REPORTER: You may proceed today, counsel.
EXAMINATION
BY MS. KEITH-BOLDEN:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Greaves. As you just heard, my name is Sarah Keith-Bolden, and I’m here on behalf of Lamar Advantage GP Company and Lamar Advantage Holding Company. Could you state your name for the record?
A Could you be more specific?
Q. Well, what name are you going to provide for us today?
A. Lucien Greaves. L-U-C-I-E-N G-R-E-A-V-E-S.
…
Q. And is that your legal name?
A. It is not.
Q. What is your legal name?MR. KEZHAYA: Object to associational privilege. And also, don’t answer that.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MS. KEITH-BOLDEN:
Q. So the name Lucien Greaves; what do you use that name for?
A. As a pseudonym.
Q. And do you use that pseudonym when you’re doing work for The Satanic Temple?
A. I do.
Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
A. I have.
Feb. 2-3, 2023: Exhibit Combined Exhibits — Document #47, Attachment #1 – (Pages 1-14 of 145 relevant)
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SATANIC TEMPLE, INC. LUCIEN GREAVES, (PSEUDONYM)
Q. So let’s go to the page that’s marked CDEX000061 at the bottom. I think that’s page 2. There’s just one part of it that I’d like us to look at. Up at the top, do you see where it says “The Satanic Temple (TST) has announced that its religious abortions during the first trimester are exempt from state regulations that hinder access to pregnancy termination services and serve no medical purpose.”; did I get that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Can you tell me what the basis for this statement was?
A. Well, the idea is that this is attached to a religious practice for us, so we’d be utilizing religious liberty laws for an exemption from state restrictions.
Q. Anything else?
A. Perhaps. Can you — can you specify?
Q. Pretty broad. Let me ask you a more specific question. When making this statement, was TST aware of any situation in which a clinic exempted someone from an abortion requirement imposed by state law because they were participating in the Satanic abortion ritual?
A. No. I — as far as I know, we’re the first to — to press this kind of claim in this way.
Q. When making this statement, was TST aware of any — I’m sorry — The Satanic Temple. Was The Satanic Temple aware of any situation in which a clinic exempted someone from an abortion-related requirement imposed by state law because of their Satanic beliefs in general?
A. No. But we feel that our position is perfectly in line with the law, and I find it impossible to see the law coming to any other conclusion than that this is a valid claim.
Q. When making this statement, was TST aware of any situation in which a court found that someone was exempt from an abortion requirement imposed by state law because they were participating in the Satanic abortion ritual?
A. No. This is — this is a first.
Q. And is The Satanic Temple aware of any situation in which a court has found that someone was exempt from an abortion requirement imposed by state law because of their Satanic beliefs in general?
A. Not — not to our awareness.
Q. All right. So I’m going to pull up a few documents related to court cases. And as I said, we’re not going to discuss them in depth. I just want [document cuts off]
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MALCOLM JARRY
Q. This is a Missouri Supreme Court case from 2019. It was in a state court of Missouri. Do you know whether this is the lawsuit that you were talking about when you said that had a member in Missouri?
A. We had multiple lawsuits in Missouri, and they went up the — but yes, this is — this would be one of the appeals that went — the — the appeal of one of the two that went to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Q. So I think you already told me that The Satanic Temple is not, as far as I can tell, a party to this lawsuit. Was The Satanic Temple involved in this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it fund the lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had talked about developing your position. And reading through this case, I think we can see what that position was. It says, “In support of her claims, Ms. Doe further alleged that she is a member of The Satanic Temple and, under its tenets, her ‘body is inviolable and subject to her will alone’; she must make health-related decisions ‘based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the science does not comport with the religious or political beliefs of others.'” Do those statements correspond with tenets of The Satanic Temple?
A. Yes.
[cuts off]
…
Q. This is another lawsuit in Missouri, this time in federal court. Are you familiar with this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. So if we look at this, the opinion here says, “Plaintiff Judy Doe, ‘Doe’ or ‘Plaintiff,’ is a competent adult woman who is pregnant and plans to have an abortion in St. Louis, Missouri. Doe is a Missouri citizen and a member of The Satanic Temple. Doe holds certain religious beliefs as a member of The Satanic Temple. Doe complains that Missouri’s Voluntary and Informed Consent Law” — and there’s a statutory citation — “violates the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.” You said you recall this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. Was The Satanic Temple involved?
A. Yes.
Q. And did it fund the lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to page 3, towards the end of the second column, the plaintiff here has cited certain religious beliefs related The Satanic Temple’s tenets; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And again, we have the tenet that “a woman’s body is inviolable and subject to her will alone”; correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that “she makes decisions regarding her health based on the best scientific understanding of [cuts off]
…
Q. Were there any lawsuits that you’re aware of in Missouri, other than these two we’ve talked about?
A. I believe it was just these two in Missouri.
Q. Are you aware of a court ever issuing an injunction against a state or a clinic telling them that they could not enforce an abortion restriction?
A. Our lawsuits take years. We’re — we’re still in the process of — of making such requests.
Q. I understand that. Are you aware of any court that has found or has issued an injunction to prevent the enforcement of an abortion regulation?
A No.
Q. So that was true in 2020 when you were creating the religious abortion ritual; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And it’s still true today?
A. That is still true today.
Q. So I notice that the date on this Eighth Circuit opinion is June 2020. Does that comport with your recollection?
A. I don’t dispute the — the date, so I, you know, I — don’t want to get into my recollection, but I accept that it was June 2020.
Q. Did that decision have an impact on the decision to create the Satanic abortion ritual?
A. I would imagine everything, you know, not — I would say — not isolated, but I would say that the — the lawsuits themselves were certainly contributive, a contributing factor.
Q. Were there other contributing factors?
A. Yes, the — the needs of our members.
Q. So why was the Satanic abortion ritual developed?
A. We’re a religious organization. Many members in the organization have had to terminate their pregnancy. And through the development of this — of this campaign and overseeing it, running it, this was brought to my attention that as a religious organization, we should be offering and providing spiritual, emotional support to our members that were consistent with our tenets.
Q. You had actually mentioned this before, but was part of the reason to also provide a new avenue for legal challenges to abortion restrictions?
A. I’d say that’s a happy consequence, but the primary motivation is to support the needs of our members.
Q. Other than you — I think we’ve already [cuts off]
…
Q. So we’ve got this allegation here, “On January 22, 2021, Ms. Doe’s religious beliefs compelled her to seek a religious exemption to these regulations, both because the regulations violate her beliefs and because they substantially interfere with the Satanic Abortion Ritual”; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. “The facility refused to grant it”; is that also correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then, “Neither Ms. Doe nor TST fault the facility”; is that accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not blame, in this case, Planned Parenthood for refusing to honor that exemption letter?
A. That is correct.
Q. Or the exemption?
A. That is correct.
Q. And then next, it says, “As written, the regulations do not provide for religious exemptions”; is that also correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And then finally, “If the facility granted Ms. Doe a religious exemption, the facility would incur sanctions from the Department”; is that also correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Other than this lawsuit, are you aware of any other lawsuits The Satanic Temple has become involved in since the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health decision?
A. Well, we have two lawsuits in Texas.
Q. Okay. So we’ve looked at one of them. Can you tell me about the other one?
A. They’re — I — I believe one is — one is state and one is federal. You know, I have to consult with — yeah, with Matthew on that, on the details he can provide you. And I’m sure he can — you know, it’s public information.
Q. So we have two lawsuits in Texas. Anything else?
A Well, we’re currently suing over — I believe those are — those are the only two outstanding cases regarding reproductive rights.
Q. Are you aware of litigation in Idaho?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And then some litigation in Indiana?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you also familiar with that?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Anything else you can think of, other than those?
A. No.
Q. If we go to page 25 of Exhibit 6, do you see this letter from TST’s attorney to the Texas Department of State Health Services?
A. I’m getting there.
Q. Take your time.
A. Yes, got it.
Q. In the middle of the page, it looks like it’s the maybe second paragraph, under the bulleted list. “This letter is a demand for a religious exemption to the sonogram requirement” — and then there’s a citation to a statute — “I use the word ‘demand’ in the legal sense; i.e., only as the assertion of a legal right, without connoting any ill will. If this matter does turn to litigation, please know that TST and Ms. Doe both support the mission of Planned Parenthood and understand its obligation to adhere to applicable Texas law and regulations.” Do you agree with that statement?
A. Yes.
[cuts off]
…
Q. What was your involvement in this one [ed. “this abortion billboard advertisement”]?
A. This would just be whatever refinement of someone else’s idea that I thought with SeedX. And this is the first time where — where it’s being suggested that it was Ashlee. But yeah, I — I might have, you know, tried to make the text a little — a little — as far as the quotes, I — I’m sure I might have honed in a little bit more on the message and then certainly the, you know, the averts restriction thing was the — the decision that we — we came to in consultation with counsel as far as how to best express the, you know, one of the — the central component to the campaign.
Q. Was this the key point of the billboard, the “averts many state restrictions” language?
A. Well, yeah, that’s — that’s sort of — that’s central to the billboard, otherwise, you know — you know, it’s not really conveying a whole lot.
Q. Then we have the last one. I think you said this was your idea?
A. Yeah, this one would be mine too.
Q. What were you trying to — go ahead.
[document cuts off]