United Federation of Churches, LLC

Lua error in Module:Incorporated_Entities at line 16: header must be either of type string or number. United Federation of Churches, LLC is a Domestic Limited Liability Company doing business as and holding the trademarks for The Satanic Temple and Lucien Greaves.^[1]^[2]

It was organized Feb. 14, 2014, in Salem, Massachusetts at 64 Bridge Street, a property shared by several other corporations owned by Cevin Soling, including 64 Bridge LLC, which owns the location.

The registered agent of United Federation of Churches is Douglas Misicko, while its manager is Cevin Soling.

However, "The Satanic Temple" is distinct from The Satanic Temple Inc, Federal EIN 82-3404757, which is owned solely by Misicko and in 2019 achieved Public Charity Status under Section 170(b)(1)(A)(i), "a church or a convention or association of churches." ^[3]

Lawsuits

The United Federation of Churches, LLC has been involved in a number of lawsuits since its formation.

In 2018, the company sued Netflix Inc. and Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. in the Southern District of New York over use of a breastless Baphomet statue with children in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, claiming defamation and that its intellectual property rights had been violated, harming its business reputation.^[4]

The suit was eventually dismissed with prejudice after Netflix agreed to give a copyright credit on all episodes that had been filmed.^[5]

The following list is non-exhaustive and includes several cases represented by lawyers of The Satanic Temple but did not include them as plaintiffs.

Court Cases
Filed	Case Name	Original Jurisdiction	Case Number	Result	Appeal
4/03/2020	United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al	US District Court for the Western District of Washington	2:2020cv00509	Ongoing	-
11/08/2018	United Federation of Churches LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al	US District Court for the Southern District of New York	1:2018cv10372	Settled Out of Court (victory) ^[5]	-
2/28/2018	Doe v. Greitens et al ("Judy Doe")^[6]	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri	4:18-cv-00339-HEA	Dismissed (failure) ^[7]	Affirmed (failure) ^[8]^[9]^[10] - Appeal to SCOTUS denied (failure) ^[11]^[12]^[13]
X/XX/2015	MARY DOE, APP V MICHAEL L. PARSON, ET AL, RES ("Mary Doe II")	Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri	[Unknown]	Dismissed (failure) ^[14]	Appeals Court orders transfer (neutral) ^[15]^[16] - State Supreme Court affirmed (failure) ^[17]^[14]
6/23/2015	The Satanic Temple et al v. Jeremiah Jay Nixon et al. ("Mary Doe I")	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri	4:2015cv00986	Dismissed (failure)	Affirmed (failure) ^[18]
3/24/2015	FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. et al v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, INDIANA	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana	1:2015cv00484	Settled Out of Court (victory) ^[19]^[20]	-

References

↑ https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/united-federation-of-churches-llc-2815622/
↑ https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/united-federation-of-churches-llc-4192840/
↑ The Satanic Temple, FEIN 82-3404757
↑ By misappropriating TST Baphomet with Children (which is a registered copyright and famous mark of TST) to publish this false and defamatory depiction of TST, Defendants have engaged in three classes of wrong: copyright infringement (Claim 1) trademark violation (Claim 2), and injury to business reputation (Claim 3). https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Netflix-Satanic-Temple.pdf
↑ ^5.0 ^5.1 An attorney for the Temple, Bruce H. Lederman, told Bloomberg Law Netflix agreed within 10 days of the Temple’s suit to give the it copyright credit for the statute on all episodes that have been filmed. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26138833/United_Federation_of_Churches_LLC_v_Netflix,_Inc_et_al
↑ "The Satanic Temple" was not named in the lawsuit as a plaintiff, but "Judy Doe" used the same attorney, William J. Mac Naughton, arguing a similar case in Missouri's State Supreme Court for "Mary Doe"
↑ This matter seeking declarative and injunctive relief comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim, [Doc. No. 17]. Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory judgment that certain Missouri Statutes are void and (2) injunctive relief against Defendants' enforcement of the statutes. For the reasons below, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted., Motion to Dismiss: Granted Defendant
↑ The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday filed by a member of the Satanic Temple against a Missouri abortion law. ... An anonymous woman, Judy Doe, sued, arguing the law violates her religious freedom as a Satanic Temple member. The Satanic Temple doesn’t believe in a literal Satan but sees the biblical Satan as a metaphor for rebellion against tyranny. A federal district judge last year ruled against Doe, and the appeals court agreed. Federal appeals court axes Satanic Temple abortion lawsuit, AP, June 9, 2020
↑ No. 19-1578, A Missouri law requires Judy Doe to certify that she has had a chance to review certain information before having an abortion. This requirement, she alleges, violates her Satanist beliefs. The district court dismissed both of her First Amendment claims, and we affirm. (PDF)
↑ 19-1578, filed 3/20/2019
↑ No. 20-385, Petitioner Judy Doe (“Petitioner”) moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a), for the disqualification of the Hon. Amy Coney Barrett from consideration of the Petition for Certiorari, Case No. 20-385 (the “Petition”) due to her publicly expressed religious beliefs that a human being comes into existence at conception, abortion is murder and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (“Roe”) was a “barbaric” decision that should “be put to an end.” (PDF)
↑ "Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case", Press release, Nov. 12, 2020
↑ 20-385, "Certiorari Denied" (PDF)
↑ ^14.0 ^14.1 The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday a case brought by a woman who said the state’s abortion restrictions violated her religious beliefs. ... The case dates to 2015, when Doe’s attorneys argued her case in front of the Cole County Circuit Court. Circuit Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the case. Missouri's high court tosses case alleging abortion law violated Satanic Temple member's rights, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb 13. 2019
↑ WD80387, Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, and we hereby order its transfer (PDF)
↑ Planned Parenthood, Satanic Temple score initial wins in abortion fight, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2017
↑ SC96751, Mary Doe appeals the circuit court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice her second amended petition seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the portion of the Missouri Informed Consent Law... This Court affirms denial of Ms. Doe’s request for injunctive relief. The informed consent law does not adopt any religious tenet, as Ms. Doe claimed. ...Moreover, the informed consent law neither requires a pregnant woman to read the booklet in question nor requires her to have or pay for an ultrasound. It simply provides her with that opportunity. .. The circuit court did not err in dismissing Ms. Doe’s petition for failure to state a claim. (PDF)
↑ 16-3387, 08/28/2018 Open Document JUDGMENT FILED - The judgment of the Originating Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the opinion. ROGER L. WOLLMAN, MICHAEL J. MELLOY and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER Hrg Sep 2017 [4698520] [16-3387] (AMT) [Entered: 08/28/2018 07:49 AM], US Eighth Circuit of Appeals
↑ Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims, (PDF)
↑ According to the settlement, Franklin County has agreed to amend its ordinance concerning displays at the courthouse within 30 days. The amended ordinance for the courthouse display permitting process will accept the designation of a local contact in lieu of requiring that sponsorship be wholly by citizens of Franklin County. Essentially, The Satanic Temple could put up its goat-head display at the courthouse if it finds a resident of Franklin County or any adjacent Indiana county (Dearborn, Ripley, Rush, Decatur, Fayette, or Union counties) willing to serve as that local contact. The contact must be a person who lives or works in Franklin County and assumes responsibility for the display. Lawsuit Settlement In Place For Satanic Display At Courthouse, Eagle 99.3 FM, Dec. 18, 2015

[1] ttps://trademarks.justia.com/owners/united-federation-of-churches-llc-2815622/

[2] ttps://trademarks.justia.com/owners/united-federation-of-churches-llc-4192840/

[3] The Satanic Temple, FEIN 82-3404757

[4] By misappropriating TST Baphomet with Children (which is a registered copyright and famous mark of TST) to publish this false and defamatory depiction of TST, Defendants have engaged in three classes of wrong: copyright infringement (Claim 1) trademark violation (Claim 2), and injury to business reputation (Claim 3). https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Netflix-Satanic-Temple.pdf

[:0-5] 5.0 ^5.1 An attorney for the Temple, Bruce H. Lederman, told Bloomberg Law Netflix agreed within 10 days of the Temple’s suit to give the it copyright credit for the statute on all episodes that have been filmed. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26138833/United_Federation_of_Churches_LLC_v_Netflix,_Inc_et_al

[6] "The Satanic Temple" was not named in the lawsuit as a plaintiff, but "Judy Doe" used the same attorney, William J. Mac Naughton, arguing a similar case in Missouri's State Supreme Court for "Mary Doe"

[7] This matter seeking declarative and injunctive relief comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim, [Doc. No. 17]. Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory judgment that certain Missouri Statutes are void and (2) injunctive relief against Defendants' enforcement of the statutes. For the reasons below, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted., Motion to Dismiss: Granted Defendant

[8] The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday filed by a member of the Satanic Temple against a Missouri abortion law. ... An anonymous woman, Judy Doe, sued, arguing the law violates her religious freedom as a Satanic Temple member. The Satanic Temple doesn’t believe in a literal Satan but sees the biblical Satan as a metaphor for rebellion against tyranny. A federal district judge last year ruled against Doe, and the appeals court agreed. Federal appeals court axes Satanic Temple abortion lawsuit, AP, June 9, 2020

[9] No. 19-1578, A Missouri law requires Judy Doe to certify that she has had a chance to review certain information before having an abortion. This requirement, she alleges, violates her Satanist beliefs. The district court dismissed both of her First Amendment claims, and we affirm. (PDF)

[10] 19-1578, filed 3/20/2019

[11] No. 20-385, Petitioner Judy Doe (“Petitioner”) moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a), for the disqualification of the Hon. Amy Coney Barrett from consideration of the Petition for Certiorari, Case No. 20-385 (the “Petition”) due to her publicly expressed religious beliefs that a human being comes into existence at conception, abortion is murder and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (“Roe”) was a “barbaric” decision that should “be put to an end.” (PDF)

[12] "Supreme Court Refuses to Disqualify Justice Barrett from The Satanic Temple's Abortion Case", Press release, Nov. 12, 2020

[13] 20-385, "Certiorari Denied" (PDF)

[:1-14] 14.0 ^14.1 The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday a case brought by a woman who said the state’s abortion restrictions violated her religious beliefs. ... The case dates to 2015, when Doe’s attorneys argued her case in front of the Cole County Circuit Court. Circuit Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the case. Missouri's high court tosses case alleging abortion law violated Satanic Temple member's rights, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb 13. 2019

[15] WD80387, Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, and we hereby order its transfer (PDF)

[16] Planned Parenthood, Satanic Temple score initial wins in abortion fight, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2017

[17] SC96751, Mary Doe appeals the circuit court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice her second amended petition seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the portion of the Missouri Informed Consent Law... This Court affirms denial of Ms. Doe’s request for injunctive relief. The informed consent law does not adopt any religious tenet, as Ms. Doe claimed. ...Moreover, the informed consent law neither requires a pregnant woman to read the booklet in question nor requires her to have or pay for an ultrasound. It simply provides her with that opportunity. .. The circuit court did not err in dismissing Ms. Doe’s petition for failure to state a claim. (PDF)

[18] 16-3387, 08/28/2018 Open Document JUDGMENT FILED - The judgment of the Originating Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the opinion. ROGER L. WOLLMAN, MICHAEL J. MELLOY and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER Hrg Sep 2017 [4698520] [16-3387] (AMT) [Entered: 08/28/2018 07:49 AM], US Eighth Circuit of Appeals

[19] Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims, (PDF)

[20] According to the settlement, Franklin County has agreed to amend its ordinance concerning displays at the courthouse within 30 days. The amended ordinance for the courthouse display permitting process will accept the designation of a local contact in lieu of requiring that sponsorship be wholly by citizens of Franklin County. Essentially, The Satanic Temple could put up its goat-head display at the courthouse if it finds a resident of Franklin County or any adjacent Indiana county (Dearborn, Ripley, Rush, Decatur, Fayette, or Union counties) willing to serve as that local contact. The contact must be a person who lives or works in Franklin County and assumes responsibility for the display. Lawsuit Settlement In Place For Satanic Display At Courthouse, Eagle 99.3 FM, Dec. 18, 2015

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

United Federation of Churches, LLC

Lawsuits

References

Navigation menu