Podcasts/Opening Arguments 147
FEBRUARY 12, 2018 BY LAWPOD
OA147: The Satanic Temple (featuring Lucien Greaves)
Today’s episode features a full-length interview with the co-founder of The Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves. This episode is part of a two-part crossover with Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only. In this episode, we talk about TST’s lawsuit challenging Missouri’s abortion law and other issues at the forefront of church-state separation.
After that, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam Question #62, a fiendishly difficult question about the Statute of Frauds. Don’t forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! https://openargs.com/oa147-satanic-temple-featuring-lucien-greaves/
Transcript
00:00:30 Pre-record (masc): [Intro]
00:00:55 Pre-record (fem): Welcome to opening arguments. The podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real life lawyer. This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of pee Andrew Torres, LLC for entertainment purposes, is not intended as legal advice and does not form an attorney client relationship. Don't take legal advice from a podcast
00:01:17 Thomas Smith: Hello, and welcome to opening arguments. This is episode 147 I'm your host Thomas Smith. That over there is Andrew Torres. How're you doing? And do
00:01:25 Andrew Torrez: I? I am great Thomas. How are you?
00:01:29 Thomas Smith: Good. I'm looking forward to speaking with Lucian grieves of the Satanic Temple today. And boy I don't think we have any announcements or anything so tell you what, why don't we get over to it?
00:01:40 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, I can't wait.
00:01:45 Thomas Smith: And today we're joined by Lucian grieves of the Satanic Temple. And as as listeners will know, we this is a sort of a two parter because I spoke to Jax Blackmore, but this in this interview. Hopefully we can talk more about this really interesting Missouri abortion case. But Lucian, how're you doing today?
00:02:04 Lucien Greaves: Not bad. How are you doing?
00:02:06 Thomas Smith: Doing great. Really happy to have you on the show. And we've we've referenced the Satanic Temple an awful lot on the show because of the the good work you guys do. And it's really fun to finally talk to you. It's amazing. How much do you know how much law do you feel like you're a lawyer? Do you feel like you have a lot of legal experience from the work that you guys have done?
00:02:27 Lucien Greaves: Ah, no. People ask me that all the time. They asked me if I went to law school or or what other legal training I have we I really have none. We, you know, we have these issues that are important to us. And we have these grievances that we feel are legitimate and then it's up for the up to the lawyers to really hash it out. So interesting. Sorry, sorry if I disappoint when it comes to parsing out some of the legal minutiae, but I'm more of the kind of Captain Kirk character who's who screams charge. And then we have our lawyer Spock characters who try to work out the logistics while we're while we're running face first into into battle.
00:03:12 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, I'm the the red shirt show.
00:03:15 Thomas Smith: Yeah.
00:03:16 Lucien Greaves: You're expendable?
00:03:18 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, exactly. You did go to the only university that matters, though. So that's so that's important that we...
00:03:25 Lucien Greaves: So I'm told? Yeah.
00:03:27 Thomas Smith: Did you go to Trump University? What is he talking about?
00:03:32 Lucien Greaves: The only one that matters today.
00:03:35 Andrew Torrez: Na, Lucian is a Harvard grad. So that's why we agreed to have him on the show. Yeah.
00:03:40 Thomas Smith: It's the only people we interview. Yeah, no. Fascinating. That's interesting, though, that so it's, it's what gave you the idea then to start doing this? Because I know you're trying to point out a lot of the, like, the ways that the law favors Christianity, or at least politicians and other people try to use the law to favor one religion over others. Is there something that that sparked that that's that doesn't really come from a legal background?
00:04:07 Lucien Greaves: But well, yeah, the the affinity for Satanism and this notion that, that religious liberty is for all. So you know, we had a lot of projects in mind starting this up and reproductive rights was one of them. But what really gave us a boost and really encouraged us to move ahead full throttle further, was actually the Hobby Lobby ruling. And now when we hear people giving the old arguments from around the 70s and 80s, because this has been litigated before. The idea that our religion doesn't compel a woman to get an abortion therefore the religious claim for to protect abortion is illegitimate, I think just ignores the the shift in the landscape regarding religious freedom following rulings like Hobby Lobby. Because previously whereas you may have been able to say, and I think there were some some questionable rulings that would have given precedent in our favor Anyways, before in this in, you know the 70s 80s and 90s that there's there's nothing that compels the abortion, you know, what compels Hobby Lobby to refuse to pay for health care benefits that have contraceptives involved in the package. You know, there's there's no scriptural direct scriptural lineage towards that way of thinking. It's just a religious claim being attached to a religion without any kind of scriptural basis, any kind of basis in regular practice. So it really kind of opened the door for a whole new interpretation of freedom of conscience and deeply held belief. And I think it's kind of ludicrous to say now, when when we put forward this idea that are our tenant that holds that the body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone is too vague to be tied to our call for exemptions on abortion restrictions is a little ludicrous in that light. So and in some other legal experts and commentators following our Supreme Court hearing and Missouri, have made that connection to Hobby Lobby also. So hopefully, in the course of the ruling, the judges consider that as well.
00:06:21 Andrew Torrez: So Lucian, there's, there's so much I want to drill down on in terms of what you've just said, I really want to talk about what, from your perspective constitutes a religious belief? Because I think that that's a it's a super interesting question that gets to kind of the heart of exploring the logic of the Supreme Court's decision or we're illogic of the Hobby Lobby decision. But let's in order to do that, why don't I'm going to talk about the specific Missouri case? And then let me know if if, if you think I've gotten something wrong in the summary here, and then, you know, we'll sort of do the application of the principle that you just talked about to the case. So my understanding is that the current Missouri law that the petitioner, Mary Doe, who is affiliated and a member of the Satanic Temple is challenging, really does three things. If you are a woman seeking to have a first trimester, abortion in Missouri, it's number one, it imposes a 72 hour three day waiting period. Number two, it requires that the woman sit there while the abortion provider read and hand her state mandated and state sponsored religious nonsense. That includes stuff like a statement that says the life of each human being begins at conception, abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique living human being. And then number three, has a has a provision that's that's had some controversy at oral argument. Here's what the law says, the law says that the state shall provide the woman with the opportunity to view at least 72 hours prior to the abortion, an active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible. And that particular phrasing of the of the law is something that duplicates model legislation that's been proposed by pro lifers in Virginia and elsewhere, that previously has always been thought of as being even though it says provided with the opportunity in order to provide a woman with the opportunity to view the ultrasound. Previous laws have interpreted this in other states, as the state has to conduct the ultrasound, right medic medically unnecessary mandatory ultrasound, and then they give the woman the opportunity to view the outcome, that that didn't happen in this case, or, I mean, let's again, you know, I've raised five or six different issue, but first I mean, did I did I get the case? Right. Is that Is there anything you'd like to add in terms of...
00:09:09 Lucien Greaves: Right and that that was that was a that was the shocker of our Supreme Court hearing was when the Attorney General conceded that he interpreted the law to mean that a woman only needed to have the opportunity presented to have the ultrasound but she could refuse it. And as you said that it's been interpreted as mandatory previously that the ultrasound take place, and that was the interpretation of Planned Parenthood and other in other institutions that are against these abortion restrictions. That's generally been where where people thought that was so it was in itself before any ruling came down, simply to have the Attorney General of the State on on record conceding mandate, what was believed to be mandatory ultrasounds and saying that they were they were missing strictly optional, so that that that caught the attention of the press as well. And it has been, it has been viewed as a victory already in advance of the ruling coming out.
00:10:10 Thomas Smith: That's interesting, can I ask I want to ask Andrew, then...
00:10:13 Lucien Greaves: that's encouraging.
00:10:14 Thomas Smith: Yeah, there. No, absolutely. That's awesome. But I want to know from our from our legal expert, then Andrew, does that commit them to anything? Like if they make that argument? Are they then committed to the position that yes, you can turn down these ultrasounds? Or are they able to say like, now he just got it wrong, or something like that? Can they go back on?
00:10:34 Andrew Torrez: So I think the best way for me to answer that is to is to ask a follow up to solution. Perfect. My understanding is that the Office of the Missouri Attorney General, the day after your oral arguments before the Supreme Court in this case, which were a couple of weeks ago, issued a formal memorandum saying that they were going to interpret the statute in this fashion going forward. Is that Is that right?
00:10:59 Lucien Greaves: That I don't know if that's if that's the case. That's something that escaped my attention. Checks would probably have a better idea. But I hope so that that would that would also be a surprise to me. But if they're committed to conceding that and conceding it defensively, I hope that bodes well for how seriously they're taking our case also.
00:11:21 Andrew Torrez: Yeah. And that would lead to the follow up question, which is, I don't know if you have heard from Planned Parenthood in Missouri or other abortion providers as to whether they've, they've changed their practice?
00:11:32 Lucien Greaves: No, I haven't heard anything about that. We haven't had any formal discussions or meetings with Planned Parenthood, I know, there was a time where some of the right wing Christian press, pro life press, were really promoting this idea that Satanists and Planned Parenthood were colluding on all of this. But it's just, it's just not the case. We're not working against each other. And we're not working with each other. There's no sense of competition, we have overlapping interests. But there isn't any, any formal merging of powers here.
00:12:11 Andrew Torrez: Well, and and so then, to kind of put it together, the government is not necessarily bound by the position that their lawyer takes at oral argument. And we've talked about that, with respect to, you know, some of the Trump's executive orders and the like, but But nevertheless, it certainly would have, what you would do is in future litigation, so if a provider declines to require these medically unnecessary ultrasound procedures based on their interpretation of the law, in the light of the concession made at oral argument by the state of Missouri, then they would be able to rely on a judicial admission, they would be able to say, hey, look, you know, the Office of the Attorney General said in open court, the law doesn't require us to do this. So we're not doing that. And that would be a defense to being charged under the law as having violated the legal standards. But it's not it absent more, it doesn't necessarily indicate that there would there would still there would still be legal room. But But I mean, I certainly agree with Lucian that that in a way that's that's already a victory. And I would Yeah, I'd love to see well, we'll follow up so as not to make sure that that that there are no charges of collusion. We'll we'll we'll follow up independently and see what what medical providers in Missouri are doing. I think additionally, Lucian, I think you're exactly right, that when I look at the briefs that were filed in this case, and I think about the strengths and weaknesses of the lawsuit, I certainly think that the being required to undergo the ultrasound is the if that if that fact is in evidence, then it makes the state's response which focused almost entirely on an act of omission distinction, right said, if you take away the medically unnecessary ultrasound, then the state's position is we're not requiring anybody to do anything. So therefore, we cannot be infringing upon the free exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs of any individual. And that that's a weird it's a it's an odd argument to make. But let me kind of tackle it at the at the top level first, which is assume that assume that the states correct and assume that going forward. This law eliminates that third provision gives you the choice of whether you want the ultrasound or not, and just imposes the 72 hour waiting period. The member you know a member of the staff has to read some religious nonsense that you would Would you would you argue that that still constitutes an infringement upon the sincerely held satanic religious beliefs of Mary Doe?
00:15:09 Lucien Greaves: Right? Well, yes, and actually, that was the thrust of the case. And when you ordered your summary, it might seem a little bit of hairsplitting, but I would have changed the order. Use mentioned the 72 hour waiting period first than the state mandated materials that need to be read by by some staff or whatever. But the 72 hour waiting period is supposed to be justified by the state mandated materials in written form, the materials that state that life begins at conception and abortion will terminate the life of a distinct individual human being. The idea is that a woman will take these materials home that state this this, what we believe to be religious propaganda, and consider them for 72 hours. Now, keep in mind, she's not able to simply miss material online, she needs to travel to the clinic, and in a place where there's one clinic, you know, that can be a prohibitive bit of travel, to go one day, and then come back three days later to actually have the procedure done. And it's really just meant to make the procedure difficult to get to make it prohibitive for women to to try to make less abortions happen, regardless of what the circumstances are, and surrounding somebody trying to obtain it, which I think is horrible. That's, that's awful. But because the 72 hour waiting period is tied in with this religious propaganda, we think we can be exempted from that, by the very fact that we don't agree with these positions. Again, we interpret our own tenant that the body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone, along with where we feel the sciences at on fetal development, to claim that the non viable fetus, fetal tissue that can't survive outside of the woman's body is tissue belonging to the woman. And it's her choice as to what becomes of it, whether she carries it to term or not, and we even think the point that abortion will terminate the life of an individual and distinct human being is an arguable point as well. But Well, the point that life begins at conception is arguable because that's, that's that's really a philosophical question, what point does life begin, but it's not as though the biological matter just springs into life. It's not like you have inanimate material that's it's brought to life by by this kind of combination. In You know, there's there's no point where you can really say, distinct beginning of life happened. And now you have the some of the pro life faction saying, well, unique DNA defines life. Well, it really doesn't. tumors have unique DNA, fetuses even brought to term they can have unique genetic mapping that up to the point where, where it's not able to exist outside the outside the womb or before 20 weeks can, can branch off and become become become twins, it's more of a genetic map than anything else. When we look at personhood, we look at higher cognitive functions, we look at the ability to perceive to feel that type of thing, not not just registering sensation, but actual perception, as I said, higher cognitive function. But anyways, that's that's a very kind of philosophical debate, we think it falls very much within the purview of religious discussion. And if the state cannot elevate those arguments made in the state mandated material to scientific absolutes universally agreed upon universal within reason, then it has to fall within religious discussion and religious exemption. And we feel that that that higher burden is on them, and that we are fully able to be exempted from from these things on a religious claim. And there again, I would have to refer back to Hobby Lobby and an interesting component of the Hobby Lobby ruling was the fact that Hobby Lobby as a corporation was able to claim that certain pharmaceuticals were abortifacients when in fact, they were not. And it didn't matter that scientifically these weren't abortion abortifacients What mattered was that they believed them to be so so that I think places an even higher burden on the state to establish as scientific absolutes that life begins at conception and that the, the, the fetus as an individual and unique human being in such a way that would nullify our perception that that's not the case. And I think with those kinds of real, real broad rulings in favor of religious liberty in the past, the door has really been open for us to make these claims. And into expect that they're not that they're not overly challenged or overly scrutinized in such a way that that the Christian religious claims have not been.
00:20:12 Andrew Torrez: There're so many directions I want to go with respect to that. One of the things that the Supreme Court jurisprudence where they have drawn a line throughout history that I think is a really difficult if not untenable line to maintain, stems from conscientious objector cases, particularly in the Vietnam War. And, and the Supreme Court drew a distinction between what they called philosophical beliefs by individuals who were not members of an organized religion, but who were avowed pacifists or who had other reasons for objecting to service in the Vietnam War. And by and large, those claims got denied those people were subject to at the time, but mandatory draft and had served. Whereas if you were a member of a religious organization, the Quakers and like that were demonstrably pacifist, that was the grounds for religious exemption to compulsory selective service. And so, extending from that has been this sort of uneasy line of when does a thought become a philosophical thought versus a religious thought? And as I hear you sort of go through all of those weighty questions and think about, you know, what, where does life begin? Does it require sensation? Or does it require higher cognitive brain brain functions? Does it require more than just, you know, pain stimulus? My first reaction, I think, is, to me, those are philosophical thoughts, right? What where do you draw that line? Or what or do you think that that distinction is no longer tenable in light of Hobby Lobby?
00:21:59 Lucien Greaves: I don't think it's it's very tenable. And I think they were dealing with something very difficult when it came to the conscientious objectors who didn't want to serve in the military and trying to determine a way in which they could decide who was doing that out of self preservation personal interests, and who was compelled by some set of group ethics, whether or not that's even a useful distinction to make when you're talking about deeply held beliefs is questionable, but the government really had an interest in not diminishing their access to compelled armed forces at the time. So you know, that's a very kind of difficult thing to deal with. But I think when you're talking about religious claims, claims involving religious exemption, you I think we have to consider what the the spirit of allowing exemption for religious claims is at all and not get too hung up on the details of what constitutes a proper religion, I obviously, I think it would be well out of line in the spirit of American pluralism to preference supernaturalism. And say that just because you believe in a higher power, compelling you to do one thing or another, that your deeply held beliefs are more deeply held or or more worthy of protection than anybody else's. Obviously, we're acting on behalf of our own deeply held beliefs and interests. I mean, this is this is a cause we truly do stand behind. And I know people think a lot of times that what we're doing is a is a big joke and a good time. But there's a lot of blood, sweat and tears that go into this. And we're not getting pro bono legal support, were throwing in heavy on legal bills that are difficult to keep up with. And we're crowdfunding for a lot of what we do. And it's certainly an uphill battle, whatever we do, and so for anybody to claim that that, that our attachment to these beliefs is somehow diminished in any way. I think it is a real abuse of, of religious exemption of interpretation of religious exemption just to try to give somebody else exclusive privilege. I mean, like I said, you have to look at the spirit of what this is supposed to do. And I think when you're being asked by the state, when you're being compelled by the state do something that's really against your conscience, and something that if you're, if you're made to concede upon, really has an effect on your own sense of personal and cultural identity, you should have some recourse to argue that kind of thing in court. And I think that's what religious exemption is good for. If you go back to the early writings of Jefferson, it was really quite clear that when he was talking about religious freedom, that he was also talking about the rights of non believers, infidels and people of any religious persuasion. He used the term religious opinion. And I think that's, that's really where we should, where we should fall on This issue. I know that a lot of people feel that what we do we only do as a matter of tactic and that if if it weren't for these legal battles or whatever else, we would have no need to identify with Satanism. It turns out that's not true either. You know, we I think we would still have our community and our values. If the Supreme Court were to hand down a hard ruling on what is is going to be recognized religion, what isn't ended, excluded us, and then people would have to decide what exactly the satanists are anyways, and we would still be who we are and generally doing what we're doing outside of the legal battles. So I think the courts reticence to confront what is truly a religion, and who gets to claim religious exemption is actually quite proper philosophically. And I think that position of taking religious claims seriously at their face value when somebody says their religion is really the most appropriate way to go about these things. Because even when it comes to openly satirical cases, like people in the Flying Spaghetti Monster church or whatever else, right, it's not to say that what they're fighting for in these values that they're expressing aren't genuinely deeply held. And if they're not, why would they be engaged in it to begin with? And I think their claims can be taken seriously, even if some of their arguments are meant in jest.
00:26:29 Thomas Smith: So I want to ask, and I don't know if you want to, if Lucian, you can answer this, that'd be great. Or if Andrew needs to answer it, because it's more of a legally question. But what is the best case scenario here? Like, cuz from my perspective, you know, as an atheist, someone with no beliefs, I would want the result of this case to be someone realizes this is a really stupid idea to give people Christian propaganda, and just get rid of that whole thing. But is the best case still just you can file for some sort of religious exemption to the Christian propaganda, but it will still happen if you don't do that. Is that just to pin down the details of this particular case?
00:27:07 Lucien Greaves: Well, I'm sorry, let me clarify something that it might not be readily apparent, but we openly identify as non theistic Satanists, we don't believe in a literal Satan. And this is another component to the overall battle. We're fighting for this kind of recognition of non theistic religious points of view. Um..
00:27:29 Thomas Smith: Yeah, no, I understand. I didn't mean to say you weren't, but I just meant, like, procedurally and how this case is being argued, and all that is still the best case scenario that we would like anyone, whether they're atheists, or satanic, whatever they are, would have to file some sort of objection to this practice, or would this case be able to show or are you arguing that they need to stop with this whole propaganda thing to begin with, and not just stop it when someone files some sort of objection to it?
00:27:59 Lucien Greaves: Well, first and foremost, we're looking out for our own and we do get messages from people saying, well, how does this help the rest of us? I don't want to join the Satanic Temple. And honestly, I just tell them, Well, that's on you. You know, we're kind of we're showing away though. And I think, you know, if if we prevail, it might not help people outside of the Satanic Temple immediately. But but like I said, it does show the way. And also, I think it's got to be very demoralizing for the theocrats on the Christian, right, who are who have this feeling that any, any strengthening of religious exemption is meant only for them. There's only one religion that can take advantage of these types of things. And I think the way forward becomes obvious for every other type of group that disputes these things. And hopefully, I would hope that in the future, this makes lawmakers a bit more skeptical of these things to begin with, and brings up the questions up front, about the philosophical basis of some of these anti abortion laws and if they can be challenged in similar ways to the way the Satanic Temple is challenging them now, right now, they're trying to argue that there's nothing explicitly religious about their informed consent materials. But we know that's bullshit. We know, we know exactly where it comes from. We've had these disingenuous questions put forward by the by the defense in this case, about well, whose religion are we talking about? This was put together by a body of lawmakers. But it was really sponsored by by openly evangelical Christian law makers as well and to try to deny that at this point is a little bit ludicrous. And I think the more we fight on in the more other people fight similar battles, the more fast such arguments against our position are apparently are in the less hopefully we'll see of this kind of restrictive legislation coming into play.
00:30:12 Andrew Torrez: Yeah. And and there there are two things that immediately come to mind here that the first is Lucia, I thought you made a really, really good point with respect to the the deeply held sincerity of the beliefs that you and other members of the Satanic Temple hold. It's it I think it is tempting in when you look at sort of media coverage to say, you know, well look, this is a parody religion, this is a stunt this is you know, whatever. And, you know, we could drill down on on the iconography and some of the other things. But But I think it is worth pointing out that the state in its opposition brief, does not raise the argument that refer doesn't apply here, because these are not sincerely held religious beliefs. I think there was a question,
00:31:06 Lucien Greaves: Think about it a little a little deeper, though. I mean, think about the the downward spiral you jump into, when you start posing those kinds of questions. Again, look at Hobby Lobby, who asked Hobby Lobby, how often Hobby Lobby goes to church, or how literally, they interpret the Bible. People look at the fact that we're non theistic Satanists, and they say, well, then clearly you're not Satan as well. Is that Is that what's really required? Do we really need a literal belief? And are we going to start demanding a certain amount of biblical literal biblical literalism from Christian claims that come forward hereafter? And I think that's a that's a very difficult terrain to get into. And just think of how ludicrous and backwards it is that initially, the Satanic Temple comes in files a suit like this, and people's knee jerk reaction is to get all pissed off and say, Well, this is this is insane. Now we have these infant sacrificing Satan worshippers coming in and making a religious claim, then they find out we're not we're neither Satan worshippers, nor nor are we, nor are we conducting sacrifices of any type. And then they're outraged saying that, well, then we're in authentic as though you know, could the court should preference that kind of lunacy over something else? And I think that that's that that gets to a kind of different topic where, you know, this kind of where legal preferencing, you know, begins to preference the the absolute deranged and insane. And to me, any any type of superstitious thinking is, is a dysfunctional thought process and shouldn't be encouraged by, by any, any legal or social process whatsoever.
00:32:51 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, well, and and you will find considerable respect for that position here here on the show. I think I mean, to me, what overlaps. I think a lot with that, with what you've just articulated is just how far the supreme court went in Hobby Lobby, in sort of, in in multiple ways, number one, in recognizing a REIT that throughout our nation's history has has inherent in individuals as now being found in corporate persons, and you will sort of look in vain, prior to 2014 to find the right have a church to do things right. That was that was we've we've talked a lot about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran, which was the repaving the parking lot of a church that that wanted to participate in public grants. And and again, the Supreme Court has continued with this rhetoric of in that case, they said a church shouldn't have to choose between being a church and competing for government dollars and you know, there's there was there was zero outrage from from most segments of society of regardless of whether you're you are you consider yourself religious, whether you even consider yourself Christian to say, hey, wait, like the the Bill of Rights, the foundational documents, the concept of protecting freedom of religion and freedom from religion is a concept that belongs to individual people with beliefs, and not to corporate institutions, right like that. The Satanic Temple doesn't have rights because it's a corporate body. You have your individual members have rights and you get together presumably because you share a core set of beliefs. And I mean, to me that's, you know, that's the outrage and you're you're on I think the right side of history, this case I should point is not phrased as a, as a collective rights case, it's phrased as the as the beliefs of Mary Doe, that goes back and answers Thomas's question this there are two components to the to the lawsuit. The first is for an individual exemption under RiFRA, which would only apply to her and to others with a similar set of stated beliefs. And then the second is a declaration that that the law itself is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment of both the free exercise and the establishment clauses. I wouldn't I wouldn't ask Lucian to weigh I think I think, you know, you would you would want to maintain the position of your you're going to win on both. So but but I will say I think I think the refer argument is a stronger argument. But but I think
00:35:47 Lucien Greaves: I'm not I'm not willing to say that I feel that we'll absolutely win. I absolutely feel we have a credible, credible argument, I feel, of course, that we should win otherwise wouldn't have pursued this. But that's not to say, I mean, we've we've been to court before, I don't have any delusions that there's always a a just or sensible ruling. In fact, when the case was originally dismissed, the asshole judge had waited over nine months and decided the case was moot because she couldn't be pregnant anymore, right. And we also had that ludicrous bit of dialogue with in the lower court where the Attorney General then was arguing that if we were to claim exemption from, from these abortion restrictions, we could only do so by providing the names of affected membership membership that was going to be affected by this in the future. I don't know, you know, you might have a better legal idea of where they were coming from, and what made them make such an asinine, ridiculous claim. But the idea was that for us to have valid standing, we needed to actually have standing from individuals, prospective individuals.
00:37:17 Thomas Smith: Members who are planning to accidentally get pregnant or something, is that right?
00:37:22 Lucien Greaves: Right. Right. I mean, they were they were setting up an insurmountable standard. That was obviously so and I think, also an abuse of what standing is supposed to provide. So but every so often, you know, those happen in the courts. And when we do, we don't know, if a ruling will come in our favor, or if we'll have to appeal this higher?
00:37:45 Andrew Torrez: Well, and and we covered that way back in August of 2016. It was episode seven and eight of the show. So So you date back to the show's first 10 episodes. And and you are absolutely I mean, I want to state unequivocally on the air, you are 100% Correct that that decision to deny standing on the basis of the petitioner is no longer pregnant is a textbook legal error. Right? I mean, it is it is, the Supreme Court could not be more clear, and in fact, is clear in the context of abortion. Right. Like that argument was raised in Roe versus Wade and explicitly rejected on grounds that were clear for the previous 100 years in other cases that said, yeah, like we there, there are, we will not allow a change in the specific circumstances for time sensitive litigation claims to move out the litigation claims, because then they essentially make them beyond the reach of the law and beyond the reach of the courts. It's, you know, it's obvious that that's a ridiculous argument. And
00:39:02 Lucien Greaves: I feel like we should have been able to demand our legal fees from the judge for failing to answer the question that was posed to him after 10s of 1000s of dollars of legal fees on our end.
00:39:16 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, well, that would open up. I mean, we could we could we could talk about sort of the difference between the US judicial system in which, you know, we have both sides come to the table and pay versus, you know, the continental European model, which tends to follow a loser pays model. I share your sympathy and the frustration there even if, even if I am not, I'm not sure I would want that that result in every case. I do want to say, I do want to say I am firmly on the side of lawyers getting paid though I want I want to make sure everybody listening to the show knows that.
00:39:55 Lucien Greaves: Oh, don't don't worry. They're getting paid.
00:39:59 Andrew Torrez: Well, how that That's my next important question. How do I get a slice of that? Sweet Sweet Satanic Temple legal budget money? We need to we need to talk about.
00:40:09 Lucien Greaves: Yeah, we certainly do. We are always happy to make the acquaintance of lawyers who even if they're not willing to be pro bono are energised over our, because it's certainly helpful to have somebody who believes in what you're doing and isn't simply getting paid.
00:40:27 Andrew Torrez: Well, I, I love what you're doing in that. I love what you're doing, period. One of the things that I like is that you are exposing on claims that folks with a Christian background take for granted where where the limits of those claims are right. So for example, you began the interview by pointing out that the claims in Hobby Lobby that are described as religious claims are at best tertiary claims, right, like it involved a material misrepresentation of facts about whether certain contraceptives were abortifacients predicate, which, which then fed into the belief that abortion is a violation of the religious tenants, which then only very loosely can, you know, be traced back to anything that you might think of, as, you know, a religious or scriptural authority. And, and I think it's a really, really good argument to say, hey, if, if that's the standard, right, if we're saying that you can be three levels out for your religious claims, that that's fine, but you should be advised that you're opening up this can of worms, because not everybody shares that that same core set of beliefs or tertiary sets of beliefs. And, and, you know, we could we could talk about some of the other cases, the, you know, the after school Satan cases...
00:41:59 Lucien Greaves: After school, Satan is a great is a great case where we really exposed a good deal of hypocrisy. Originally, we worked very directly from Liberty Council's own model and getting after school clubs into the... in we, you know, we use them as kind of like, the as the model. You know, we, like I said, we lifted directly from their materials when we were submitting letters to the school districts that already had good news clubs and things like that. And further, our plan was in kind of a smartass way, where if we got pushback from the school districts, we were going to approach Liberty Council and ask them if they would defend our religious liberty, because they do. They do like to put things in the term terminology of religious liberty rather than theocracy. But we didn't even have to reach out to them. The first Washington Post piece that came out about it. Mat Staver from Liberty Counsel was quoted as saying that, yes, Satanists have a free speech right and that's all there is to it. Two days later, however, they put out a press release offering pro bono support to any any school district that was trying to keep us out. So so there you go, and then and then Judicial Watch that had fought for a long time to make sure that religious organizations got a free pass on any tax exemption or whatever else. They they set up an environment in which nonprofits were being rubber stamped pretty quickly. And and then it was Judicial Watch that expressed outrage that our after school Satan club got its exempt status so quickly and it wasn't even the wasn't even the club itself. It was our nonprofit fundraising arm reason Alliance was rubber stamp really quickly, but it was rubber stamp really quickly because of the work that conservative groups like Judicial Watch had put into it. And now Now they're crying seeing that it's applied to us. So and if nothing else, we're really showing the hypocrisy in these positions.
00:44:10 Andrew Torrez: No, I think I think that's exactly right. And it illustrates you know, the the false dichotomy and and asymmetry right that the if you partake in fundamentalist Christian literature, culture movies, the ACLU is the enemy right. That's why they created you know, pat, pat robertson created the ACLJ to but virtually every major religious liberty case before the Supreme Court in the latter half of the 20th century, in which Christians were a party with the the ACLU was counseled to that. I mean, the the the flip side of what we laugh about with, with something like with a group like Liberty Council, or the Alliance Defending Freedom, or Larry Clayman, or you know, some of the other guys that that the flip side absolutely is Have a case with the ACLU. Right. And, and, and, and that's what I love about the the approach is, you know, as as lawyers trying to get people to draw lines and take a position is sort of a key part of of how you go about parsing how you how you analyze a case. And, and I think you've, you've illustrated in these cases that, you know, there, there isn't a good way to put a line that puts putting up the 10 commandments in a public park on one side of the line and putting up a statue of Baphomet on the other side of the line, right. Like it's, it's, it doesn't divide out that that neatly there.
00:45:42 Lucien Greaves: Right, and you know, what's funny is we're very much the minority and very much an underdog and all that we're doing. It's hilarious. Often we're called the bullies in this situation, we've had some of our chapters apply to give in vocations before city council meetings where they're supposed to be open to any invocation, but usually only have a Christian prayer being delivered. And it's it's appalling how many times it's said that we're merely trying to censor religious voices, and therefore we shouldn't be allowed to speak or when we have an organization like Liberty Council, which is probably worth some millions annually, claiming that that we're, we're bullying around to these other evangelical organizations, when you know, we're the ones receiving the death threats, were the ones throwing in a lot of our personal funds, and in not making it back and doing the best we can to crowdfund and fund our legal bills through merchandise sales, we don't have the kind of benefactors they have. So it is, it is funny that that we can be perceived that way. But I think it just, it just says something about how, how well grounded our legal arguments really are. We couldn't even be perceived as such bullies if we weren't making a strong case. And it's not a strong case built upon financing or, or any of the other amenities that some of these groups we're fighting against have.
00:47:12 Andrew Torrez: So in addition to what I would call pursuing impact litigation, right, like the the the DOE versus Greitens case in in Missouri, do you engage in lobbying at the state, local or federal level?
00:47:29 Lucien Greaves: Well, we want to start engaging in that a lot more. And you mentioned model legislation earlier, and we've been tracking some of the organizations that, that produce model legislation and sometimes, you know, there's obvious model legislation, we're not sure where it's been generated from the 10 commandments, model legislation that we fought against in both Oklahoma and Arkansas, not sure where it originated from, but it's obviously the same bill in we're looking at those kinds of tactics, and we want to start doing much of the same thing, you know, and in some cases, that doesn't have to be attached to the name, the Satanic Temple, which in some cases can be toxic. But we have enough allies now where we can start working very seriously on things behind the scenes and trying to introduce model legislation nationwide. You know, through different entities or whatever else, we really are becoming that insidious satanic network that the conspiracist feared throughout the 80s and the 90s.
00:48:39 Andrew Torrez: Well, it alright so if we if we have listeners who are sitting there thinking, Okay, I'm not down for the goat blood drinking and the baby sacrifice what's what's your what's your what's your 30 second pitch for for why they should consider the Satanic Temple?
00:48:55 Lucien Greaves: because we get shit done, and we're never going to stop getting things done. I've gotten a very kind of jaded when it comes to a lot of other activist organizations that they come to love the status quo and they love the fight for the the fundraising opportunities that they create. But you can always count on us to get down to the the bottom dollar and into and run into the negative just to make sure that we fight the fight as hard as we possibly can in fight it in a way to actually win. We will do everything to do that. We have some people here in the Satanic Temple who have dedicated everything they have and everything they are to what we're doing, and we're really not going to stop.
00:49:45 Thomas Smith: Well that's really cool. And if people want to support you find the Satanic Temple online and stuff. Where should you point them to?
00:49:53 Lucien Greaves: TheSatanicTemple.com and follow us on on facebook for updates on news on Twitter? It's at SatanicPsalms and you can follow me on Twitter as well at Lucian grieves since Twitter unbanned me but also buying merchandise helps to fund our campaigns as well so if you go to shopSatan and pick up some Satan swag, you know that the the funds we generate from that also go towards these campaigns that we're waging against the theocrats.
00:50:26 Thomas Smith: That's awesome. You're doing the Lord's work and now you're undoing a lot of work with one of the other and thanks so much for coming on the show and breaking down and explaining a lot of what you're doing it really I like that attitude that you are just trying to get stuff done. Just going to to try to fight fight the theocrats. It's really cool.
00:50:46 Lucien Greaves: Great. Thank you so much. And anytime you want to check in with me, just let me know.
00:50:51 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, absolutely. Seriously. Thanks for coming on the show.
00:50:54 Thomas Smith: And now it is time to thank our new patrons@patreon.com slash LA. Go be a part of the fun there. By the way, go go check out the extra stuff. It's really good. And on that note, let's thank our new patrons this week. Brian Segovia, Brian Caffrey. Lots of Brian's live a number of but if you're a Brian join up, it's all the Brian's are joining up. Kuyper belt transport dot space. Josh Beach, Aaron sagetv. LAUREL Griffith and Emily Gallus.
00:51:25 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, and thank you to jop Zack bricks, Emily Robinson. So hey, also a good also good week for me. So if you're an Emily, sign up, Tampa dad 1966 And Lisa Blackburn, thank you all so much for supporting the show over at patreon.com/law. We will continue to give away all kinds of great stuff to our patrons. I don't think anybody's ever regretted being a patron of the show.
00:51:51 Thomas Smith: No, never happened to try. We would have heard about it. Yeah. claims about patrons regretting being patrons. They're not guaranteed No.
00:52:00 Andrew Torrez: ...are fully guaranteed I think we should stand behind that.
00:52:03 Pre-record (masc): Oh, no associate this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.
00:52:10 Thomas Smith: All right. Well, it is now time to find out how poorly Lucian and I did on the bar exam question that this was a tricky one. And it seems to have required some sort of legal knowledge which we don't have. So let's find out the answer to today's to this week's bark question.
00:52:28 Andrew Torrez: Yeah. So this week's bark question involved schnauzer who supplies dog food, selling 800 bags at $20 apiece to chow, owner of a pet store who bought the dog food and Chow received partial partial delivery of 100 bags paid for it, but then said you know 20 bucks per bag is too high. I will not take the other 700 bags signed off and and then filed to invalidate the contract under the statute of frauds. How should the court rule on this issue? So first, what's the statute of frauds? The statute of frauds is a principle in the law that specifies when contracts have to be in writing. So one of the things we've talked about on the show is the the line of when magic words in the law start to show up, right, so many oral contracts are enforceable. The way in which we know whether contract has to be written is whether the contract meets one of three criteria. And all lawyers have to memorize this coming out of law school and it's just I don't know the reasons for it. But the here are the three things you have to memorize which are lawyers playing along will be able to recite back from their one oh years. If the contract cannot be performed within one year, and and let me be very, very clear about on that if the contract might or might not right, if it's renovate a building. That's that's not a contract that can't be performed in one year. But if it is, two years from now, I will deliver over the next 24 months that you know the following installments that has to be reduced to writing contracts for the sale of real property that is land must be in writing. And and this overlap Uniform Commercial Code, any contract for the sale of goods valued at $500 R or more who?
00:54:43 Thomas Smith: So it seems key.
00:54:45 Andrew Torrez: Yep. So here, the statute of frauds definitely applies. We have the sale of $16,000 worth of goods. And now the question this is a very, very typical bar exam kind of thing. So now the question is What whether this sort of goofball memo, repudiation is a sufficient recommendation to satisfy the requirement of the statute of frauds? And and the answer is, because it specifies the terms, right? It says, right, no real person would write $20 per bag is too high, I hereby repudiate. And I'm not going to accept delivery of the other 700 bags signed to me, right like, but the bar exam question goes through that to test you to make sure you know, all of the elements that go into a writing that satisfy the statute of frauds. So this satisfies that. That means that Thomas's Second Chance bar exam is still going strong, the court is going to rule in favor of schnauzer and against Chow, best ground...
00:55:53 Thomas Smith: So, let me get this straight. The reason that we were so confused is that they're saying this. They're saying the note that he wrote back? Yes. After an oral deal. Yep. Is enough of documentation of the deal. Yes, absolutely. Oh, my gosh.
00:56:11 Andrew Torrez: And yeah, now I know. And the reason there is because it's signed by the party against whom you were looking to enforce the deal. Right. So you've got Charles right. And sure. And he reiterates all the major terms of the contract. So of course, so like,
00:56:26 Thomas Smith: He could have just not done anything like he just turned down, correct. The food and with no explanation, and that would have been better for him. That would have been better for his under breed. Yeah, this is a trick question that a non lawyers never gonna get rid of. Sorry. Yep. So under I hated this question. I was I just didn't understand the phrasing of like, how is the note? I was like, the statute of frauds must apply to a contract. I didn't understand that a note written about an oral agreement can turn into a contract. That's crazy.
00:56:58 Andrew Torrez: Yep. Because signed by the party against whom it is to be enforced, specifies the term says I agree to it. That's a that's a valid written card
00:57:07 Thomas Smith: Bar exam, you got me.
00:57:09 Andrew Torrez: So Correct. Answer A. D is the second best answer. Right? It's it's so you guys got the right result. But but for the wrong reason. That's, that's, that's good for half credit in in Thomas's Second Chance law firms. I think we might have our first Thomas, you might have your first associate in the law firm.
00:57:30 Thomas Smith: Oh, yeah. We're gonna start on our own law firm, where we just kind of guess and get it like half right. Sound good, Lucien?
00:57:37 Lucien Greaves: People think I'm a lawyer already. So I'm just proving right now that I'm not.
00:57:41 Thomas Smith: Yeah.
00:57:43 Andrew Torrez: We have, as Thomas will tell you, we have lawyers on the show all the time we make them run this gauntlet.
00:57:51 Thomas Smith: I don't think they've ever gotten one right. Or am I crazy?
00:57:55 Andrew Torrez: You may be correct. It's it's...
00:57:58 Thomas Smith: We've had three or four at least, lawyers attempt to answer the bar question with me. And they've I don't believe they've ever gotten it right. Yep.
00:58:08 Andrew Torrez: There you go, furnish those credentials.
00:58:11 Lucien Greaves: I'm well on my way.
00:58:12 Thomas Smith: Thanks for playing along, Lucian. It's been a lot of fun chatting with you today. Thanks for coming on the show.
00:58:17 Lucien Greaves: Thank you. Thank you so much.
00:58:19 Andrew Torrez: And I am going to hop into my time machine, go into the future and insert our winners.
00:58:26 Pre-record (masc): Meanwhile, the whole of justice.
00:58:29 Andrew Torrez: Well, Thomas, I think you can take some solace from the fact that as far as I can tell, none of our listeners got this question right either a bunch of listeners analyze the question properly from the statute of frauds perspective, but then proceeded to guess see, because they weren't thinking about whether the note actually incorporated the necessary elements and was signed by Chow and therefore valid as against Chow that included I think the best wrong answer on that was Andrew Drake. But our winner is going to be friend of the show and I believe previous winner Ilan wall, who is at i La NWO ll on Twitter, who writes I don't understand what the statue of frogs has to do with the law but if there's one thing that satisfies non statue frogs, it's BS, so be delightfully insane, completely nonsensical, completely wrong, but of our ROG answers, the one that made me laugh the most, so Alon, you are this week's tttp winner and everyone should feel pretty good about being in the same boat together.
00:59:44 Thomas Smith: Alright, well that's it for today's show. Thanks again to Lucian Greaves for not making me look bad on the bar most of all, but then second most of all for the for the interesting interview on the Satanic Temple and I guess we'll have to see everybody for a another rapid response Friday.
00:59:59 Andrew Torrez: Yeah, maybe may or may not be at lightning speed.
01:00:03 Pre-record (masc): Stop breaking the law, asshole!
01:00:11 Pre-record (fem): This has been Opening Arguments with Andrew and Thomas. If you love the show and want to support future episodes, please visit our Patreon page at patreon.com/law. If you can't support us financially, it'd be a big help if you could leave us a five star review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever podcast delivery vehicle you use. And be sure to tell all your friends about us for questions, suggestions and complaints, email us at open arguments@gmail.com the show notes and links are on our website at WWW dot open arcs.com Be sure to like our page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter at open arcs until next time. This podcast is a production of opening arguments media LLC, All Rights Reserved. Opening Arguments is produced with the help of our editor Brian's Egan Hagen production assistant Natalie no and our unofficial researcher magpie. A special thanks to the moderators of the opening arguments Facebook community Natalie, Alicia Cook, Eric Brewer and Emily waters. And also thanks to Thomas Smith, who wrote and produced all of the amazing music you hear, which is used with his permission.