Washington Post > Judge Moskowitz Historic Extradition DecisionBack to Washington Post
1993 EXTRADITION DENIED: Philippe Sauvage
US Federal District Court, Southern District of California, Magistrate Moskowitz (#92-4160M)
After hearings of true historical importance in which hundreds of the most significant and important
European figures testified in behalf of Philip Sauvage to prove his complete innocence and establish the gross political machination against him and his "subversive" ecological work, the US justice at the highest federal level, denied violently the extradition of Philip Sauvage toward France on grounds of political, religious and ethnic persecutions. That was the first time in the American judicial history that a (non-lrish) European citizen had ever been granted such a decision.
Following are a few excerpts from the Honorable Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, to whom Philip Sauvage has expressed his deepest gratitude for having "given me back my Freedom, my Faith and my Honor."
EXCERPTS FROM US FEDERAL JUDGE MOSKOWITZ DECISION:
"Memorandum Decision Regarding Petition of France for the Extradition of Philippe Sauvage," February 10, 1993.
... Sauvage was already outside of French boundaries in Greenland, a Danish dependent, when the [French] investigating magistrate made his findings. Sauvage went to Greenland for one of two purposes, neither of which was to escape French prosecution. He went to Greenland either to establish an "archeotherapy center," as claimed by the [French] investigative magistrate, or to aide in efforts to preserve the Inuit peoples.
...The issue is not whether Sauvage can invoke the powers of a higher being to effectuate a cure. Rather, the question is whether Sauvage in good faith believes he has that power. If the government were to obtain fraud convictions of persons who solicit funds in return for religious blessings, the guarantees of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment to our Constitution would be in serious jeopardy. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized the peril to religious freedom that could result from a similar prosecution in the absence of proof to negate the existence of a good faith belief in the "religious solicitation."
...We do not agree that the truth or verity of respondent's religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury. Whatever this particular indictment might require, the First Amendment precludes such a course as the United States seems to concede. Freedom of thought which includes freedom of religious belief is basic in a society of free men. ... Men believe what they cannot see. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet, the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law...
The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom. The religious views espoused by the respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity. then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect"
...In order to find Sauvage extraditable there must be probable cause to believe that he did not sincerely believe that he had these powers. This court cannot make that finding on the present state of the record. There being no probable cause to believe Sauvage committed the offense charged and the facts established not constituting a criminal offense in the US, the present application for the extradition of Philip Sauvage is denied...