{"id":3038,"date":"2024-05-24T23:59:00","date_gmt":"2024-05-25T06:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/queersatanic.com\/?p=3038"},"modified":"2024-05-24T23:59:00","modified_gmt":"2024-05-25T06:59:00","slug":"the-new-heretics-stream-5-24-24","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/qs.gehenna.ynh.fr\/?p=3038","title":{"rendered":"The New Heretics Stream (5\/24\/24)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Watch Twitch.TV\/QueerSatanic<\/a>
(Fridays @ 8 p.m. Pacific \/ 0300 GMT)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Jump to<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. [INFORMED DISSENT] The Satanic Temple, Inc v. the City of Chicago<\/a><\/strong> (“Chicago invocation trial schedule set”)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. [WE LIVE IN HELL] Iowa vandalism case conclusion<\/a><\/strong> (“Michael Patrick Cassidy sentenced to probation in guilty plea”)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. [PERMANENT SHITTENING] Ongoing recap of TST’s 2024 schism<\/a> <\/strong>(“Memegate continues to roil Satanic Temple”)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. [INFORMED DISSENT] The Satanic Temple Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC<\/a><\/strong> (“Dueling summary judgment motions reveal TST used same PR firm as Catholic Church”)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    1. [INFORMED DISSENT] The Satanic Temple, Inc v. the City of Chicago <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Chicago invocation trial schedule set<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    This is one of the lesser-known lawsuits The Satanic Temple is pursuing, another invocation challenge after their failed Scottsdale and (so far) failed Boston lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This one began in May 2023, and has got a little legitimate coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"
    BookClubChicago.org<\/a>: The lawsuit says the city violated the religious group’s First Amendment rights by “excluding disfavored minority faiths” from giving an invocation at the start of City Council meetings. Adam Vavrick (right). Credit: Colin Boyle\/Block Club Chicago, Provided<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
    \n

    CHICAGO \u2014 Local Satanists are raising hell with a new lawsuit alleging the city is barring them from saying \u201cHail Satan\u201d at City Council meetings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The lawsuit \u2014 filed this month by the Satanic Temple \u2014 says the city violated the religious group\u2019s First Amendment rights by \u201cexcluding disfavored minority faiths\u201d from giving an invocation at the start of City Council meetings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    During the invocations, religious leaders remind lawmakers to \u201creflect upon shared ideals and common ends before they embark on the fractious business of governing,\u201d according to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    More than 50 local religious groups have given invocations in front of City Council since The Satanic Temple Illinois first inquired about giving one in December 2019, said Minister of Satan Adam Vavrick, citing publicly available meeting minutes.<\/p>\nMack Liederman for BookClubChicago.org<\/a>, May 18, 2023<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Two things speak in this lawsuit’s favor more so than the Temple’s recent track record<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The first is that the primary attorney on The Satanic Temple’s side is one Adele D. Nicholas<\/a>, a local a civil rights lawyer and the executive director of Illinois Voices for Reform. That’s actually a big deal because TST’s usual legal stable<\/a> is incredibly incompetent<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The second is that one of the 50 aldermans of the city council<\/a> did that thing where you put into writing something you’d rather not have read back to you in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Again from Book Club Chicago:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Ald. Daniel La Spata (1st), who Vavrick said he spoke to about the issue and who is copied on emails to city officials, also said he could not comment on pending litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In an email obtained by Block Club, La Spata wrote to a city official, saying the requests were \u201cnot at my behest.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cOnce I learned that he wanted to end his convocation with \u2018Hail Satan\u2019 it ceased being something I could support,\u201d La Spata wrote in the email. \u201cFor all of my desire to be inclusive, that would be a betrayal of my personal faith.\u201d<\/p>\nMack Liederman for BookClubChicago.org<\/a>, May 18, 2023<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    The Federal district judge apparently felt this way, too, as the Hon. Joan H. Lefkow let the case proceed in March 2024, ruling to not fully dismiss the case at this preliminary stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Before the court are plaintiffs\u2019 motion for preliminary injunction and the City\u2019s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Dkts. 7, 11.)
    For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion for preliminary injunction is denied.<\/p>\nMemorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim \u2014     Document #25<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Some selections from that opinion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Plaintiffs contend that the City\u2019s conduct violates the First Amendment in two ways: \u201c(1) the City violates the establishment clause by excluding disfavored minority faiths from the opportunity to provide an invocation; and (2) the City grants the City Clerk unconstrained discretion to decide who can and cannot deliver an invocation.\u201d (Dkt. 1 \u00b6 28.) The City argues that neither of these theories plausibly states a valid claim for relief, insisting that the government speech doctrine gives the City full discretion over whom it invites to give invocations and that the City\u2019s invocation practices are consistent with those upheld by the Supreme Court. (See dkt. 11.) The court agrees that plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Free Speech Clause but concludes that plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to plausibly allege that the City violated the Establishment Clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    … <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Additionally, although the complaint indicates that plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, an injunction, and damages, it does not identify the legal vehicle by which plaintiffs seek such remedies<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    … <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Because only Section 1983 provides a vehicle for a plaintiff to seek a damages remedy for a constitutional violation by a municipality, the court construes the damages aspect of the complaint as articulating a Section 1983 claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The complaint explicitly invokes the Establishment Clause, so
    the court analyzes the complaint under that provision. But plaintiffs\u2019 use of the \u201cforum\u201d and \u201copening a forum\u201d language also employs terms of art under the Free Speech Clause. \u2026 Because the nature of the Free Speech Clause claim is not clear from the face of the complaint, the court begins its analysis there before turning to the Establishment Clause dispute.4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4 By alleging that the City excluded Vavrick from giving religious speech in a \u201cforum\u201d while permitting clergy from other faiths to do so, the complaint also implicates the Free Exercise Clause. \u2026 Since the parties only make arguments relating to the Free Speech and Establishment Clauses, however, the court disregards plaintiffs\u2019 passing mention of their \u201cFree Exercise claim.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That leaves the government-control factor. The complaint provides slightly more detail on this point, indicating that the City lacks a policy for selecting clergy to give the invocation but generally accepts requests from those who wish to do so, subject to \u201cstandard vetting procedures.\u201d (Dkt. 1 \u00b6 19.) In other words, the City chooses to relinquish at least some control over selecting invocation speakers and open that process to public request. This implied relinquishment of control and openness to public participation might lean in favor of finding that the City\u2019s legislative prayer practices constitute regulation of private, rather than government, speech. See Shurtleff, 596 U.S. at 253\u201358 (concluding that flags flown on city property in front of Boston\u2019s City Hall constituted private speech where government took \u201ccome-one-come-all attitude\u201d to allowing members of public to fly flags on those flagpoles). But without allegations regarding who ultimately makes selection decisions5 or what the \u201cstandard vetting procedures\u201d consist of, it is impossible to infer the extent of the control surrendered by the City.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    5 The complaint contains the conclusional assertion that \u201cthe City grants the City Clerk unconstrained discretion to decide who can and cannot deliver an invocation.\u201d (Dkt. 1 \u00b6\u00b6 4, 31.) But the factual allegations in the complaint only show that Vavrick communicated with staff in the Office of the City Clerk who indicated that they could be helpful in scheduling him to give an invocation. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 19\u2013 25.) Such allegations provide no information regarding who actually has final decision-making authority\u2014whether that be the City Clerk, someone on the City Clerk\u2019s staff, the City Council, a City Council committee, or some collaboration of people with various positions with the City.<\/p>\nMemorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim \u2014 Document #25<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    This judge is not a fan of the current supreme court, and there’s a lot of that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But it goes toward yet another example of generous court readings for TST’s benefit, bending over backward to be fair to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Plaintiffs have therefore plausibly alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause.7 Whether the facts will prove the accuracy of this assertion is a question for another day. To succeed, plaintiffs will essentially need to demonstrate that the City excluded Vavrick because of his religious beliefs.<\/p>\nMemorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim \u2014 Document #25<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    The update this week was just that we have some idea of what the timeline looks like for the case based on the deadlines the judge gave for each portion of pre-trial labor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    B. The parties shall have until June 10, 2024<\/strong>, to make Rule 26(a)(l) disclosures.
    C. Amendments to the pleadings and\/or joinder of additional parties may be sought upon appropriate motion by September 9, 2024<\/strong>. Amendments thereafter may be made only on motion for good cause shown.
    D. Non-expert discovery will close on December 16, 2024<\/strong>.
    E. The cut-off date for designation of plaintiffs trial expert(s) as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) is January 13, 2025<\/strong>; for defendant’s trial expert(s), February 10, 2025<\/strong>. Depositions of the experts shall be taken within 30 days of designation. Unless otherwise stipulated, disclosure of experts will include a report fully in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).<\/p>\nOrder \u2014     Document #33<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    So if everything goes according to schedule, this case will be heard no earlier than spring 2025. But this is very provisional and court deadlines move backwards, not forwards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And again, The Satanic Temple seems to have somehow \u2014 somehow! \u2014 landed some competent representation here. TST’s primary lawyer Matthew Kezhaya is sanctionably combative<\/a> in malicious and incompetent ways that seem to make it harder for the Temple to get wins in the first place. If you act like a dick and make the Defendant and its lawyers hate you even beyond the lawsuit itself, a favorable settlement seems less likely. Maybe Adele Nicholas won’t do that and city will say it’s cheaper and easier to let TST go ahead with their invocation than stop them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But it does seem like every city has some interest and not being forced to let any self-described religion take over part of their meeting. Given TST’s usual burn-through rate and the ongoing major schism centered on TST Ministry<\/a>, it will also<\/em> be interesting to see if “Minister of Satan Adam Vavrick” is even still associated with TST and ordained by the time 2025 rolls around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Back to top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    2. [WE LIVE IN HELL] Iowa vandalism case conclusion <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Michael Patrick Cassidy sentenced to probation in guilty plea<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    We have already covered this fairly extensively since December 2023, especially in our May 3 recap<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Michael Patrick Cassidy<\/strong>, a failed, reactionary Mississippi election candidate went up to Iowa specifically to vandalize TST Iowa’s “nativity” piece, a small Baphomet display.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"\/<\/a>
    Satanic Temple of Iowa display at the Iowa State Capitol (Nixson Ben\u00edtez \/ The Register)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    For this, Cassidy had what would have been relatively minor vandalism charges elevated to a felony due to prosecutors utilizing a hate crime statue: Cassidy had targeted Satanists for their religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Cassidy’s lawyers pushed back on this, claiming in pre-trial motions, “A corporation likewise cannot practice a religion. It could never be said, save in Wonderland, that Best Buy is Buddhist. Neither can an LLC know skin color, ancestry, or a disability.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But this failed, and going into this week, the judge was going to let the hate crime charges be dealt with in the trial itself in June.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The local TV news station WLBT did a pretty excellent write-up<\/a> ahead of the expected trial, recapping what had happened as well as the fact that Cassidy might spend five years of his life in state prison. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Instead, on May 24, Cassidy took a plea deal<\/a> that dropped the hate crime add on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Cassidy was set to stand trial June 3 after the court denied his motion to dismiss the case, but on Friday morning, his attorney filed a plea of guilty on his behalf. According to the filing, Cassidy admits to third-degree criminal mischief, but as an aggravated misdemeanor, without the hate crime enhancement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He admits in writing that he “partially dismantled a display in the Iowa State Capitol Building, without a right\/license to do so,” and that the damage caused was greater than $750.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The agreement calls for Cassidy to receive a deferred judgment with two years probation, an $855 civil penalty, and to pay restitution in an amount to be determined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He would also be required to participate in a victim-offender dialogue with representatives of the Satanic Temple if requested. The court is not bound to follow the sentencing recommendation in the plea.<\/p>\nWilliam Morris for DesMoinesRegister.com<\/a>, May 24, 2024<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    On May 28, the judge indeed accepted the deal,<\/a> finalizing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This was, by our reading, genuinely<\/em> surprising for a number of reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    First was that, as the TV news story made clear, Cassidy apparently did what he did with a lot of forethought and to great (quantifiable) success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    After destroying the statue, Cassidy found security, and told them what he had done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    He was initially released without any kind of punishment. Yet, minutes after leaving the capitol, Cassidy received a call from authorities in which he was told that he would be issued a citation. He was charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief – a misdemeanor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A SaveGiveGo account<\/a> was set up for Cassidy after the charge was announced.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A portion of his account reads, \u201cOut of the millions of Christians in this nation, Cassidy was the first to act in bravery and conviction. He was not willing to see God reviled, especially in a building where lawmakers are supposed to honor Jesus Christ as King and look to his law for wisdom as they legislate with justice and righteousness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In less than three hours, the account had raised $20,000<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    …<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the months following the upgraded charges, his SaveGiveGo account has ballooned, now reaching nearly $135,000<\/strong>.<\/p>\nWLBT.com<\/a>, May 23, 2024<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    And that’s in addition to Cassidy’s sudden rise to national prominence, at least among Christian Nationalists and the rest of the far right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"\/
    Michael Cassidy, along with his lawyer, Davis Younts, speaks to Jesse Watters the day after destroying a Satanic statue in the Iowa State Capitol. (Source: FOX News Channel\u2019s Jesse Watters Primetime via WLBT)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Unlike some other attacks<\/a> planned or executed upon The Satanic Temple, Cassidy seemed to be in full possession of his mental faculties, and even if sincere, capable of a level of cynicism about how to turn this act of protest into a secure place on the right-wing grift circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Because had he gone through with the trial, look at Cassidy’s options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Best case scenario for him, he is acquitted by a jury of his peers who find out lots of uncomfortable things about The Satanic Temple’s origin, how its tangled web of incorporated entities actually interact, and the weird shit the religion’s literal owners get up to and have gotten up to. It’s Des Moines, but it’s still Iowa. It’s possible the case would have just affirmed that it’s open season on Satanists everywhere in the USA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What about a worse scenario: Cassidy is convicted but the jury rejects the hate crime aspect and only convicts on misdemeanor fourth-degree criminal mischief<\/a>, serving up to a year in county jail? That would be an unpleasant year, to be sure, but Cassidy would undoubtedly come out of it a martyr and a hero. He would be able to live off of that forever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Even Cassidy’s worst case scenario, actually getting sentenced to five years in state prison, starts to look a lot brighter when you think about the sort of celebrity he would become as a result. With the Republican Party in the ultra-reactionary mood it’s in now, you mean to tell us Gov. Kim Reynolds<\/a> or someone primarying her from the right wouldn’t leap at the chance to be the one to pardon Cassidy? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There were lots of ways this could have gone very badly, and TST as a victim is particularly dangerous for a case like this because it has so many lies and so much baggage that tend to come out in trials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Back to top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    3. [PERMANENT SHITTENING] Ongoing recap of TST’s 2024 schism <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    “Memegate” continues to roil Satanic Temple<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Satanic Temple co-owner, co-founder, and national spokesperson Doug “Lucien Greaves” Misicko is very sure that all of the problems in the Temple are everyone else but<\/em> him, and on May 10, he said that if you disagree with that, you should “get the fuck out of TST”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Since then, a lot of people have taken him up in that offer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We’ve continued to add to our recap article from last week into the present week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    The Satanic Temple and its Eternal Nobodies<\/a><\/blockquote>