Gosh, this is a WEIRD situation if you have not been following along the whole time.

In this part, we're saying that a pseudonymous declaration from a TST contractor who admits she's paid by The Satanic Temple to stalk us online shouldn't be considered b/c a.) it's sketchy as fuck as well as impossible to hold someone accountable for it and b) this is just the Temple trying to backdoor their defamation/anti-blasphemy tactic yet again

Plus, the Temple a history utilizing pseudonyms to behave badly.

Apologies for all this backstory: this is just how these people are

OK, so #TheSatanicTemple's owners *habitually* do perjury and utilize pseudonyms on legal documents beyond, to our understanding, any generosity the law might allow.

Yes, that sounds inflammatory; it's really not very straightforward:
https://queersatanic.com/today-is-a-good-day-for-the-satanic-temple-to-release-its-finances/5/#:~:text=shamelessly%20lying%20even%20to%20the%20point%20of%20committing%20perjury

Doug Misicko's comedy of errors in Belle Plaine is a heightened version of this sort of thing, but also routine.

The Satanic Temple *loves* to pseudonyms (sometimes called a #satanym or #demoniker), but whatever the ostensible reasons, they sure seem to use it dodge accountability an awful lot.

All of this explains our challenge to "Rachel Chambliss" who admitted she is PAID REAL ACTUAL MONEY to monitor people criticizing TST online. Apparently, she listened to our whole Dixieland of the Proletariat interview, too, and even provided a handy transcript for it
-https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/42/1/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/
-https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17042463/42/2/united-federation-of-churches-llc-v-johnson/

TST has *been* mad at us for pointing out that their free speech claims ring hollow given how it always seems to be in favor of literal fascists and neo-Nazis rather than anyone else; their response is to keep abridging the free speech rights of former members, critics, and journalists with weaponized, expensive litigation.
---
III. ARGUMENT
A. TST’s Pseudonymous Declaration Should Not Be Considered.
Defendants object to TST’s use of a pseudonymous declaration. In support of its Motion, TST submits only one declaration from an unidentified person in Canada using the pseudonym “Rachel Chambliss.” Chambliss Declaration ¶¶ 1-2. This “person” states that she/he/they is using the pseudonym due to a general reluctance to be publicly affiliated with TST. Id. ¶ 2 (“I am submitting this affidavit under a pseudonym to protect myself from harassment due to my employment and membership with The Satanic Temple (‘TST’).”). Only in “rare circumstances” may witnesses testify anonymously. Doe v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. 216CV00305CASJEMX, 2017 WL 797152, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, witnesses do not testify anonymously under our system of laws.”) (quoting Diamond Pleasanton Enter., Inc. v. City of Pleasanton, No. 12-CV-00254-WHO, 2015 WL 74946, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015)). Such rare circumstances are not present here. TST has not sought a protective order to keep its witness’s name under seal, nor has TST filed any document identifying the signer of the supporting declaration. 28 U.S.C. § 1746 requires that unsworn declarations be signed by the declarant under penalty of perjury. Without any record whatsoever of a witness’s identity or their signature, a declarant cannot be held to their statements under “penalty of perjury.” Id. Because TST has not obtained permission or otherwise shown cause for filing a pseudonymous declaration, the Court should decline to consider the defective declaration offered in support of TST’s Motion.