Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, International, Media, Politics, Religion

Controversial Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested For Alleged Probation Violations

The filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Mohammad video that sparked the recent protests and deaths around the world, has been arrested by federal authorities for allegedly violating the condition for his probation on a 2010 conviction for bank fraud — violations that could land him in jail for three years. Given the calls for his arrest and even execution by Muslim allies, the arrest raises obvious concerns that the Administration is again defending free speech while quietly moving to punish those who cause religious strife.


From my experience as a criminal defense attorney, the violations described in a case of his kind rarely warrant the 4-month term demanded for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. In addition, the federal authorities insisted on his being jailed as a flight risk, though it is unclear why that is the case and why he could not be given an electronic bracelet.

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal found that Nakoula exhibited a “lengthy pattern of deception” and posed “some danger to the community.” I can see the basis for the first conclusion but not the evidence of a danger to the community. My concern is that the response to his film — which is a protected act of free speech — was weighed in the balance of such a decision. Nakoula is accused of eight charges of probation violation including making false statements to authorities about the film. He reportedly admitted that he wrote the film but authorities insist that he did not fully explain his role.
The U.S. Attorney suggested that he might charge Nakoula with making false statements about the film — charges that would seem an obvious act of retaliation by the Administration.

The distrust shown by many free speech advocates, including myself, is that the Administration has a checkered history of claiming to support free speech while supporting the creation of an international blasphemy standard. The federal agents quickly moved against the filmmaker after the controversy. Probation rules are written in a way that make it relatively easy to find violations. The immediate scrutiny left many with the impression that the Obama Administration wanted to show Arab allies that the filmmaker was under arrest while professing a commitment to free speech.

Source: LA Times

167 thoughts on “Controversial Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested For Alleged Probation Violations”

  1. I had assumed by “informant” it was on the political/intelligence side. -Internet Freud

    There’s quite a bit of latitude with this folks, as you probably know.

  2. Internet Freud,

    I missed your blog link. Do it again please.
    And hang around. We might just have some hates in common, or loves—-who knows.

  3. PatricParamedic,
    “Our ‘melting pot’ mind-bent has become eccentric to the point of madness, and the end result is corrosive beyond belief.”

    Are you pointing at all those rednecks that came over in the 1700s, or the 1800s, or…..?
    When did yours and how were their immigration proven in advance.

    You really blew it immigrant hater. Hee hee hee!

    1. Interesting. I had assumed by “informant” it was on the political/intelligence side. Not sure how his being an informant on a criminal investigation matters; he struck a deal, gave information, and got favorable treatment of it. That doesn’t mean that the government looked the other way in connection with his probation terms.

  6. Internet Freud,

    You make a hard caee to fight. However, one question, how did they manage to throw the pope in the pool just so well timed?
    Do they have them waiting on the shelves?

    And why did they not provide protection to the consulate and accept a politically expensive failure on the war on terror front?

    You trivialize the political aspect. But worse things have been done to win elections. Like the Vietnam war. Every hate-Obama point counts.

    Of course I admit my anti-CIA bias. So the idea that Repub politicians doing deeds on CIA turf attracts me in its novelty.

    1. (1) I suspect the film was out there causing some controversy in other places (perhaps Egypt, which has been looking for reasons to be offended), and it was seized upon as cover for Libya. In other words, it was handy. But, we’ll never really know. What we do know, however, is that the Administration’s seizing upon the film as the specific reason for the attack in Libya, i.e., the attack was an unplanned protest that veered out of control because of a film, was head fake, a dodge, and a lie, and one repeated for more than a week.

      (2) I think they got caught with their pants down vis protecting the embassies and consulates on the 9/11 anniversary. It was particularly embarrassing, and worthy of cover-up, given not only the proximity of the election, but the fierce attacks the President had launched against his predecessor for not heading warnings leading up to the 9/11/2001. From multiple, independent sources, it is clear that the Administration was warned at least four times, including ongoing expressions of concern from the now-slain ambassador.

      (3) Has this entire event been seized on for political purposes by the Red Team. Yes. If this had happened to a Red Team administration, would the misdirection have worked as well? I don’t think so. To date, this President has been able to skate by with very little media scrutiny of his dishonest statements and strategies. Dishonest Red Team leaders tend to get called on the carpet.

  7. Prejudge?

    You have me confused with somebody else.

    My bone to pick here is the layers of government not doing their job of protecting the folks from – in this case – at least two decades of crime, by somebody who – in a brighter world – would have been tossed back into a prison in his native country long, long ago.

    Fake passport names, fake drivers license. Fake business names. Drug dealing; tax fraud & stealing a child’s social security number for fraudulent checks. And after each? Well, slaps on the wrist, which only stoke his resolve that he can move off to bigger & better scams.

    I do not believe for a minute he caused the death of our foreign service folks. I absolutely believe he gave mental midgets worldwide a terrific excuse to blow off steam. Because they already hate U.S. foreign policy.

    He knew it, and he figured it was a cool way to get rich & famous.

    20 years worth of crap, spilling all over the citizenry of the country that welcomed him with open arms.

    That’s my beef. So, your question as to what did we know & when did we know it?

    That’s my whole point. When it comes to logical immigration, we are off-the-chart blind. We scrutinize little old ladies at airports in Iowa, while ignoring those who maybe ought to be examined a bit more thorughly.

    And so we vet them and they then wreak havoc? What do we do? We are off-the-chart nuts, for allowing them to take advantage of rights they’ve opted to manipulate.

    What we are doing in this regard is an unsustainable arc.

  8. Freud, You’re being attacked by a coward who made up a lame name so as to have cover. Welcome to the kook fringe here. Most are sane. A few are kooks, pseudo intellectuals, pompous and even a sanctimonious one or two. The real idealogues are like virtually all idealogues on both ends of the spectrum, completely humorless. They’ll try and run you out..stand your ground as I can see you have the intelllect, wit, resolve and humor to survive the attack of the Lilliputians. Most are one trick ponies.

    1. It’s amazing what a snarky aside will get you when the subject has taken as close to an intellectually indefensible position as I’ve seen in a long, long time. And her comparison? I suppose having a picture of an admired thinker as an avatar does carry with it a message of sorts: that I hold a fondness for a free-thinking, syphilis-addled philologist who was terrible at relationships. But, I think that’s a step removed from the folks who make their college connection a part of their name. I know enough of those folks to be irritated enough to deliver a smartass poke which obviously hit a very tender spot.

  9. Internet Freud — “I just got irritated and let it spill. I am an amateur, and can’t always control my quirky peeves.”

    And failed to realize that in donning an avatar you were guilty of practicing one of your own pet peeves making you an irrational amateur.

    You went for the personal attack and have experienced the turn around. You failed the challenge so now it’s time to sulk and rename it a pet peeve.

    Predictable behavior as this exercise has just proven.

  10. Waldo,
    “Waldo
    1, September 28, 2012 at 10:54 am”

    Thanks for Popehat excerpt.
    The challenge to the Professor is also a new thought. Why do we always hear either the prosecutor or the defence attorney, but seldom both.
    JT’s presentation seems lacking.

  11. “He broke his parole in a way that showed total disregard for the conditions of his parole and which in fact showed that he was still playing fraudulent tricks on people, disguising himself, giving false names, etc etc.” -Natalie

    And while he met the needs of the state, he retained his relative freedom while acting as an informant.

    1. I’m curious about the informant issue. Care to provide a link of some kind? While it may end up distracting from the Free Speech issue, it does cast the arrest and incarceration in an even more negative light.

  12. Internet Freud 1 said:

    “I hope that’s just you. The idea of censorship by immigration practice is a pretty ridiculous idea.”

    Censorship?

    I’d say any view of this character’s behavior limited to his “right” to free speech, and then gracing him with ‘acceptable immigrant’ status, is naive beyond belief, and goes well beyond the censorship. Such a view opts to ignore his utter disregard for anybody but himself. The fellow has degenerated from knave to firebomb; hides his face because he is a coward; and wreaks more than his fair-share of havoc in a nation where – I’m guessing – he suspected all along he could hoodwink.

    You’ve noticed, I’m sure, that he didn’t immigrate to Singapore or Kuwait to play his reindeer games.

    My point is, some of the finest places to live & raise kids on this planet, learned long ago that the primary responsibility of their leadership, is to its protect own citizens first. They choose not to do this with guns & smart bombs like we do. They do it by simply applying logic to whom they allow at the table.

    And one very effective way to do it, is vetting the incoming folks; tossing out the rowdy; and never allowing a rank criminal’s mere presence to cause harm to the “family.”

    You know, kinda like your house.

    1. Okay, so enlighten me on what aspect of his character–what things he did prior to entering the United States–would have been a red flag for you? Or did you prejudge him based upon what he did after he was here?

  13. He broke his parole in a way that showed total disregard for the conditions of his parole and which in fact showed that he was still playing fraudulent tricks on people, disguising himself, giving false names, etc etc. Separate this from the free speech issues. He broke his parole. Arrest and losing the privilege of early release from prison is a consequence of it.

  14. I-Freud, I have been blogging with S-Mom for quite a while and never even noticed her name or wondered about it because I really don’t CARE what name a person would like to use, and certainly another person’s choice of name has no implications about ME. Her posts are very interesting and that is why I read them. I have probably disagreed with her at times and cannot now remember; who cares?

    As in: WATA (What’s all that about?) 😉

  17. I submit that this character is a society wrecking ball in a primate’s body, and has become – by his mere residency – the pluperfect poster child for the reason wise nations pay a hair more attention to whom they anoint citizenship.

    Our ‘melting pot’ mind-bent has become eccentric to the point of madness, and the end result is corrosive beyond belief.

    But that’s just me.

  18. Speaking of Shakespeare in the park–he had to submit his plays to a censor, and some were performed before the court. More than enough politics involved to make a writer who liked being free and alive to think things over before putting pen to paper.

  19. IF, Many of us have names that can refer to many, many things, your presumption and irritation points to yourself, no one else. Maybe I should presume this is merely projection and you like to wear clothing and sticker your car with the name of the school you may have attended, elementary and above

    1. Yes, I’m irritated by folks who wear their college names on their sleeves. Does it point to me? Actually, if you care, the answer is, “No.” It’s one of those peeves with which I live consistently. There are certainly others as to which I don’t. That’s called being human.

Comments are closed.