Accokeek seeks reversal for lack of jurisdiction
Robert Stowe England with Auburn Faber Traycik |
11 January 2002
RICHMOND, VA. -- In a reply brief filed here today, the vestry of Christ Church, Accokeek, and parish rector ex officio Fr. Samuel Edwards urged the U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse the decision of a district court in Maryland that ousted Fr. Edwards in October and to instruct the lower court to dismiss the case.
Acting Bishop Jane Dixon brought the lawsuit last summer that led to the ouster of Fr. Edwards as rector. She had rejected the parish's call of Fr. Edwards last March, but did so 53 days after a 30-day limit for bishops to review a parish's call.
The reply argues that Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court of Maryland's Southern Division in Greenbelt erred when he interfered in the case while there was an ongoing dispute resolution process within the church.
The brief argues that the case lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the issues in dispute involve religious doctrine and discipline and are, thus, the province of the church and not the state. It cited a number of court decisions that, it points out, establish "a doctrine of judicial deference to ecclesiastical authorities."
Judge Messitte improperly interfered in an ongoing dispute, the case claims. "Any court action should await the completion of the church procedures for dispute resolution under the doctrine of judicial deference to ecclesiastical authorities," the brief state.
The dispute remains unresolved within the Episcopal Church. Charges against Fr. Edwards for holding religious services in a diocese for more than 60 days without a license are yet to be tried in the Diocese of Ft. Worth. Charges against Dixon were dismissed by a church panel last September.
The reply also argues that case should never have been decided in the district court because there was no diversity of jurisdiction that is required to take a case to the federal court system.
Dixon, a resident of Washington, D.C., sued as an individual against the Maryland parish. The Diocese of Washington, which operates in both D.C. and Maryland, was not a party to the suit -- an omission that was improper, the reply brief argues.
The brief reiterated arguments that had been made earlier that Judge Messitte erred in granting a summary judgment in the case when there were genuine issues of material fact, which means that there were significant points of law and disputes over facts that were material to the case.
When there are genuine issues of material fact, it usually requires that the case be tried and not settled in a summary judgment.
Finally, the brief reiterated earlier arguments by Fr. Edwards and the parish and also by two bishops an amici curiae brief that the court order violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion when it barred Fr. Edwards for holding religious services and barred the vestry of Christ Church to use property over which the have property title to hold religious services.
The amici brief in support of the parish was filed by Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker and Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan. It was then refuted in a brief filed by 26 bishops led by Virginia Bishop Peter Lee.
The case is on a fast track in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit. A hearing on the filed motions and responses is slated for January 24, the day the Diocese of Washington begins its convention to elect a new bishop.
The brief, filed in an appeal by parish attorney Charles Nalls of deKieffer & Horgan, disputes the arguments of Acting Bishop Jane Dixon that were filed January 2.
It is not yet known which of the judges on this mostly-conservative court will hear the case. "It will be heard by a panel of three judges, but we will not know the names until the day of the argument if they operate like any other Circuit," says Nalls.
In Dixon's response to the appeal, attorney David Schnorrenberg, chief litigator for Crowell & Moring, had reitereated Dixon's novel claim that she as the highest ecclesiastical authority in the diocese and, since the Episcopal Church USA is hierarchical in nature, she can interpret the canons as she sees fit, irregardless of what they state.
Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court of Maryland's Southern Division in Greenbelt had agreed with Dixon's claim that she can interpret the national canon that limits bishop to 30 days time to review the call of a rector. Dixon had rejected the call of Fr. Edwards to be rector of Christ Church last March 83 days after the diocese was notified of the call in December 2000.
The brief rejected Dixon's claim that the case was "conjuring" genuine issues of material fact. It cites Judge Messitte's ignoring of contradictory claims about the polity of the Episcopal Church as a primary example of a genuine issue of material fact.
Fr. Edwards and the vestry of Christ Church "articulated evidence that, as a constitutional church, Episcopal Church USA's polity is a matter subject to change," the brief stated. "This is a matter agreed to by Jane Dixon in her brief to this Court."
"Yet, as discussed in [Christ Church's] Brief, the District Court [of Judge Messitte] simply selected [Dixon's] competing version of the facts, and discounted and ignored the affidavits of [Christ Church's] expert witnesses," the brief stated.
The brief cites the fact the 26 bishops disagreed with the amici brief filed by Bishop Iker and Duncan as evidence of disagreement within the Episcopal Church about its polity -- and reason for the court to stay out of the dispute.
The brief also argues that the Episcopal Church is not simply hierarchical, as Dixon claims, but "possess a mixed polity, under which all of its members, including bishops, are governed by the Constitution and Canons of the Church."
The brief also argues that the Diocese of Washington was a necessary party to the lawsuit and that as an individual Dixon has no right to control the parish's real property," where title is held by the vestry.
"Moreover," the brief states," the right of 'access' of a bishop is a right of 'visitation' only for so long as the parish is affiliated with the church."
"Even assuming Apellee Dixon is the Rector in the absence of such, she cannot prevent the Vestry from leasing the property, inviting speakers and so forth," the brief states.
The district court's decision, thus, amounts to a judicial denial of the property rights of the vestry -- "or the Diocese of Washington has been injected into the process, a joinder that defeats diversity jurisdiction," the brief states.
Strategy Behind the Amici Brief of 26 Bishops
The intervention of 26 bishops into an amici brief earlier this week gave a window into the strategy of ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the bishops who dominate the church, according to Nalls.
Nalls contends there is a three-pronged legal strategy by a "band of...revisionist wifters and vague corporatist theologians," coordinated by the national chancellor and led, he believes, by Bishops Griswold and Lee, who flanked Griswold in the meeting with conservative/traditionalist bishops in New York last May.
Not only is this group's aim to crush or repel any remaining opposition to their agenda, but to secure absolute episcopal power and retain a legal lock on church property, Nalls claims.
The goal is "the exaltation of the episcopate"--to make each bishop "the arbiter of the canons by federal law"--and to head off any church property problems which may arise from the appeal, he contends.
Nalls thinks that uncertainty about the outcome of this case is a key reason that Griswold has not led the Episcopal House of Bishops (HOB) to deal substantively up to now with the March 2001 call by Anglican primates for "sustained pastoral care," presumably including alternative episcopal oversight, for oppressed groups in the church.
Griswold recently put the issue on the agenda for the HOB meeting in March--just weeks before Anglican primates meet again, and at a time when the Accokeek appeal probably will have been decided. Nalls suspects that "flying bishops" will take off or be grounded in the HOB based on the results of the appeal.
Return to Dixon/Edwards archive
