Dixon vs. Accokeek . . . Arguments Heard
in Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
David W. Virtue |
26 January 2002
RICHMOND, VA. The courtroom was full; the atmosphere somber as the death penalty case led the docket. The legal suits in white shirts, power ties, razor-cut hair styles and litigation cases bursting with high-priced briefs, looked for all the world like pall-bearers at a proper Episcopal funeral.
Even as the Diocese of Washington was on the eve of electing a new bishop the diocesan heavy-hitters were all down in Richmond to watch the case of Bishop Jane Dixon versus Fr. Sam Edwards and the vestry of Christ Church, Accokeek. Both groups staked out their territory on different sides of the courtroom. Both groups politely acknowledged one another.
There was a palpable sadness in the courtroom; a cross between a funeral parlor waiting for a priest to send the dead to his final reward and a revisionist bishop intoning a liturgy she no longer believes in.
The day had started out with Morning Prayer for the faithful who had driven down from Washington DC to attend the oral argument at the US. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals here in Richmond. The day was overcast and dreary.
The lower lobby of the hotel echoed with the praises of God as vestry, lawyers and parish members joined with Fr. Edwards to recite the prayers and lessons as a reminder as to whose army they serve. The mood was strengthened as the lesson for the day spoke of putting on the full armour of God to withstand the devil.
At 9.30am the court convened. The clerk of court intoned "oyez, oyez God save this honorable court and God save the United States of America." A door opened from behind the bench and the three appellate judges stepped into the room moving slowly taking their places at the bench. The oak-panelled ceremonial courtroom seemed a fitting place for what might be the death sentence of a parish and its priest.
The ancient ritual of the dispensation of civil justice had just begun.
The death penalty case was quickly disposed of as dry technical arguments over a man's life were made. There seemed little question that the arguments would not reverse the conviction and death sentence. The lawyer gave it his best shot and the judges just as surely acknowledged it.
Now the moment of truth had come. Canon lawyer Charles Nalls stepped up to the podium and began, "May it please the court..." Moments earlier he had received the blessing from Fr. Edwards with a prayer that 'in all things God's will would be done.' Now it was time.
Nalls turned first to the question as to whether it was proper for a religious dispute to even be heard in a federal court. He argued that because the mechanisms of the Episcopal Church in particular and charges pending against Fr. Edwards, had not concluded, the US Constitution barred civil courts from entertaining the case.
The judges were well prepared their copies of the court papers bristling with annotated yellow sticky notes. They had come prepared with questions, in particular whether the Ft. Worth proceedings might compel an outcome other than that reached by the district court.
Nalls replied, "we simply don't know because the end of the story has not yet been written in ecclesiastic court." He emphasized that the cross briefs of orthodox and revisionist bishops only highlighted the ecclesiastic nature of the dispute. As well the court was keen on whether Jane Dixon should even have filed the suit as an individual. Nalls pointed out that she could not particularly (as an individual) since property interests appeared to have been in play in the case, Dixon's claims notwithstanding.
Lead counsel David Schnorrenberg of the law firm of Crowell and Moring, Jane Dixon's lead counsel barely had the opportunity to begin his argument when he found himself peppered with questions by Judges Roger Gregory and Diana Motz over jurisdictional issues and why the diocese was not part of the case. "Why," asked Judge Gregory "was just its bishop and not the diocese named in the case as a necessary party?"
Schnorrenberg made his case that the lower court's ruling should stand and that the Episcopal Church was indeed hierarchical, and Dixon its highest ecclesiastical authority to whom obedience was owed. But on several other jurisdictional issues he was caught out twice, replying "I am not prepared to answer on that question."
Nalls responded that a written statement by former Diocesan Bishop Ronald Haines said otherwise (and first sent to this writer in the form of an e-mail) stating that the church was in fact "collegial and conciliar and not hierarchical."
Nalls objected to the fact that the District Court had summarily decided this crucial issue.
Arguments about the worth and value of another bishop's efforts to take jurisdiction over another bishop did not seem to go down well for either side. But the central issue over jurisdiction formed the central theme of the arguments and questions.
The arguments ended as they started with each side declaring an end to their arguments.
The judges now have several options. They can dismiss. The could affirm the District Court's decision creating more of an imperial episcopate. Or, the court could dismiss on jurisdictional grounds for failure to join the diocese's party leaving the case open for refilling in state court in Maryland. Finally, the court might determine that the matter so involves ecclesiastic issue that it would be unconstitutional to hear it in any court.
At the conclusion of the arguments the three judges descended from the bench and personally greeted all counsel for the parties in a rare moment of gentility and civility in an otherwise rancorous case.
A decision is expected on an expedited basis although veteran court observers would not venture a guess as to when it might be released.
National church interests were clearly in play as J. B. Burtch investigating counsel on the Dixon presentment was present in the court along with a plethora of diocesan officials from Washington DC and several from the Diocese of Virginia.
MILLION DOLLAR LEGAL COSTS
The diocese is now almost a million dollars lighter in supporting Jane Dixon's individual lawsuit against Fr. Edwards and the vestry. While the lawsuit has been personal - Dixon versus Edwards and the vestry - the diocese will pay the bills for her personal lawsuit.
But there's a catch here. "Dixon should be sent a 1099 - a tax bill for this private income," commented one attorney familiar with the tax laws. The taxable amount is expected to be in the region of $250,000 or more. Dixon will not come out of this with clean hose on.
The newly elected Bishop of Washington, Robert Chane has said he would continue to litigate against Edwards and the vestry in the run up to the election, although the basis for such a suit is unclear.
When asked, Wes Courtney, vestryman at St. John's, Christ Church said he and the vestry are ready and prepared to continue the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. "We are armed with truth, and truth is still its own best defense."
Return to Dixon/Edwards archive
