Controversial Filmmaker Of “The Innocence of Muslims” Sentenced to One Year In Jail

Mark Basseley Youssef (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the filmmaker connected to the controversial film “The Innocence of Muslims,” has been sentenced to a year in prison for violations of his probation for his 2010 bank fraud conviction. The arrest of Youssef raised immediate objections that, while the Obama Administration insisted that it would not punish such acts of free speech, it set out to arrest him on any possible grounds to satisfy the “Arab Street.”

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder sentenced Youssef on four of the eight alleged violations that he admitted to, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver’s license (which can be based on any information deemed inaccurate or false). What is most problematic is the violation of denying his full role in the film. The Obama Administration wanted a two-year sentence for Youssef. He also was found to have used a different name without the approval of his probation officer. At least three names have been associated with Youssef since the film — Sam Bacile, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Youssef. However, documents show that Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula in 2002 but continued to occasionally identify himself as Nakoula.

When the Administration arrested Youssef, it seemed to go out of its way to be sure that there were ample opportunities for filming him being dragged way in cuffs — an image that was immediately broadcast around the world. It sent a chilling message to some that the government can generally find some grounds to punish you when you cause a controversy — even if you are not prosecuted for the underlying speech itself. Violations of probation conditions are quite common and rarely result in re-incarceration. Probation terms tend to be sweeping and most such violations result in warnings or brief appearances before the court.

None of this excuses Youssef’s actions, particularly in his acquiring of the driver’s license. Yet, the speedy arrest (and now conviction) leaves many civil libertarians uneasy as to whether the Administration found a way to “hoist the wretch” by other means than blasphemy.

Source: Google

95 thoughts on “Controversial Filmmaker Of “The Innocence of Muslims” Sentenced to One Year In Jail”

  1. “…Maybe he will learn and change his ways since he had no respect for our laws and conditions of parole.”
    randyjet (above, here)


    Check out the Winkleman decision: Jeff & sandy Winkleman of parma, Ohio…Why this United States Supreme Court of LIES & HYPOCRISY, said that parents have the right to take up their children’s cause under (“Special Education”) as their own and go into any Court asserting their rights (since these children are minors, and Goss v Lopez has already established their 14th Amendment Liberty & property rights in their education…not to mention the fact that the IDEA (2004 Individual Disability Education Act) gives them extensive rights!
    When I did just that, they provided the cover for the attoney Jeanne M. Kincaid of Drummond& Woodsum (Portsmouth, NH) to keep me (now permanently unemployed), send me porn and death threats, as well as my son) and deny my human rights.
    Today, I continue to live in shelters, i lived in NH, RI, MD, Niagara Falls, and Buffalo NY, and now I am living in Chicago in a shelter. Kincaid wants you to believe that I still live in baltimore, and that I am insane. Just remember this:
    9While Campbell has not cited all of the relevant regulations in support of her claims, the facts alleged show possible violations of a number of regulations, including: 34 C.F.R. § 300.101 (a) (requiring a “free appropriate public education” for all children, including those with disabilities); 34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (requiring school districts to provide special education students with nonacademic services to support implementation of an IEP; 34 C.F.R. § 300.121 (mandating procedural safeguards to protect the rights of parents and children under the IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 300.123 (requiring procedures to maintain confidentiality of any personally identifiable information); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300 (generally requiring informed parental consent for evaluations of children, conducted to determine eligibility for special education services); 34 C.F.R. § 300.301 (requiring initial evaluation to occur within sixty days of referral by parent or school); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304-300.306 (providing procedures and requirements for conducting evaluations of children and determining eligibility for special education services); 34 C.F.R. §§300.320-300.324 (defining an IEP, setting out required contents of IEP, identifying rights and responsibilities of all parties, including school, special education providers and parents, in creation of IEP, and describing procedures for developing, reviewing, and revising IEPs); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (establishing rights of parents to obtain independent evaluations of child); 34 C.F.R. § 300.504 (establishing procedural safeguards for parents and children); and; 34 C.F.R. § 300.511-300.519 (establishing procedures for conducting a due process hearing upon the filing of a due process complaint and explaining procedure for resolving complaints through hearing and appeal).
    (Magistrate Judge Muirhead’s Report & Recommendation 2007cv00276, pg.18).
    This is why Kincaid places “anonymous” postings here on Turley’s;
    pretending that I am delusional! When you’ve sent porn and death threats to a 10 yr old boy for a number of years, when you’ve denied him enrollment in school for 2 years; when you denied his father the right to be involved in his life FOR NO REASON AS THAN CORRUPTIONS (AS JUDGES AND JUSTICE BREYER [PROVIDES THE COVER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES) WHAT CAN YOU SAY?
    Is this not what we are told the former soviet union did/does to its citizens? ABUSE THEM AND THEN PRETEND THEY ARE CRAZY?
    AND WHAT ELSE IS THIS DEGENERATE WHORE TO DO? (Her name: >Jeanne M. Kincaid)?

  2. Nick,

    from the Article…..

    Federal authorities have said they believe Youssef is responsible for the film, but they haven’t said whether he was the person who posted it online. He also wasn’t supposed to use any name other than his true legal name without the prior written approval of his probation officer.

    At least three names have been associated with Youssef since the film trailer surfaced — Sam Bacile, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Youssef. Bacile was the name attached to the YouTube account that posted the video.

    “This is a defendant who has engaged in a long pattern of deception,” Dugdale said. “His dishonesty goes back years.”

    Court documents show Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula in 2002, though when he was tried, he identified himself as Nakoula. He wanted the name change because he believed Nakoula sounded like a girl’s name, according to court documents.

    As has been pointed out….Where would we be without Mark Twain….Oh yeah….he used that “N” word….maybe his stuff should be banned…after he is a white male….and most likely a Republican… the time…I suppose that wasn’t so bad…..

  3. My wife is a former Federal PO. She concurs w/ the professor that this appears excessive, w/ the caveat she would like to read the case. It probably isn’t on Pacer, but if it is I’ll provide an expert opinion from her. My wife isn’t a “douchebag/idiot/stupid/moron” like her husband so you can trust what she says. She can’t help she married a douche.

  4. The more relevant inquiry here is WHO was behind the film. Did numnuts have the money to fund this endeavor? Was Iran behind it? Was the US government somehow behind it?
    This numnut might have been a convenient pawn, a James Earl Ray, to be used to put the movie together.
    His original criminal offenses were for fraud involving fake names. Usinng fake names on parole should get him locked upl
    What truly is the role of the Obama Administration, at what level?

    JT: The election is over. Lay to rest the “Obama the uncivil libertarian dogma”. Oh, I dare not use that word in my dog pack.
    Romney cant put you on the DC Court of Appeals now so lay off Obama.
    I drink at the bar in the Willard and I know whats going on in your small town. I may be a guide dog but I got big ears and can growl into the dogaloge machine and say my piece. Or peace.

  5. Couple of comments. I question why the US Atty would be so interested in a state charge of a driver’s license application issue. The other is why was this man prosecuted for using a different name when authoring a particular story/writing. Is he not able to use a pen name? Throw Mark Twain in jail for misrepresenting himself.

    I don’t see where any financial fraud happened in making the movie or using the internet. I would have thought it would have been a necessary elemement of the parole violation.

    I will slightly disagree with our professor in that probation violations rarely result in re-incarceration. Serious violations can result in a rapid return to a multi year prison term. But he is exactly correct in what the powers to be determine to be “serious” (whether or not it is is failry subjective sometimes.)

    One example i experienced (briefly) was I stopped a guy for a minor traffic violation and he gave me a false identity. (his brother) I determined he was lying and hooked him up for false statement. I searched his car incident to arrest to find any true ID he might have hidden for evidentiary purposes and to ascertain his identity. In doing so I found a bullet resistant vest (body armor) When I got his real name I discovered he was on probation and recently released from prison for armed robbery and 1st degree assault.

    Possession of body armor by violent felons is not illegal under the Revised Code of Washington but is a federal crime so I booked him under the false statement and the arrest warrant he had outstanding. I telephoned our local ATF agent who took the case (the defendant was looking at a five year prison sentence for the federal charge) But that happened just after Arizona v. Gant came out. so the US attorney’s office declined to prosecute. After that the Washington Department of Corrections took over and revoked his probation. I heard they sent him back to prison for, guess what? 5 years.

    Sorry for that long story on one topic. But understand that where there is a will there is a way when it comes to putting “undesirables” in prison. How loose the definition of undesirable is is where the controversy lies.

    Lastly, the parading of the defendant as JT describes. It certainly calls into question the real motive of the matter. Maybe this is why French law prohibits that sort of spectacle.

  6. USA Today reported: “Youssef admitted in open court that he had used several false names in violation of his probation order and obtained a driver’s license under a FALSE NAME [emphasis mine]. He was on probation for a bank fraud case.”

    Huff Post, meanwhile,reported that, “Youssef served most of his [prior conviction’s] 21-month prison sentence for using more than a dozen aliases and opening about 60 bank accounts to conduct a check fraud scheme, prosecutors said.”

    Does any reasonable person here really believe Youssef’s probation violation of committing repeat FRAUD, which Turley implied was “based on any information deemed inaccurate or false” does not warrant a return to the pokey???

    Give me a break.

  7. Frankly,

    No one is suggesting he should not face repercussions for violating his parole. Gary’s sentence fairly sums up the problem with the issue. The penalties (and the swiftness of the proceedings) give this the appearance of political and judicial impropriety. I think the Prof is right on this one. The punishment is not fitting the crime but smells of politics detrimental to the Constitution. We’ve got enough of that going on already. Is this a tragedy? No. Not compared to the Kill List or not prosecuting the Bush Administration or the Patriot Act, but it still wrong to indirectly and disproportionately punish this guy for his admittedly stupid exercise of his 1st Amendment rights for political purposes.

  8. WHAAAAAAA! he is a criminal. He broke the law. He then violated his parole and did it in an outlandish way sure to draw a lot of attention to himself. That he gets the hammer dropped on him should not be a surprise. The only reason anyone is crying for him is because he wants to pretend this is about his free speech. Its not, its about his flagrant disregard for his parole stipulations.

  9. I will try to sum it up in one sentence:

    What may be legitimate charges and penalties procedurally, violate substantive due process if the motivation for those charges and penalties stem from unconstitutional purposes.

  10. And I think you are entirely missing the point, randyjet.

    This is unusually harsh and swift punishment and it smacks of special treatment on political grounds. That special treatment is the result of a free speech issue. This is contextually offensive to the 1st Amendment and ostensibly punishment for something other than just the parole violations.

    And what Blouise said.

  11. And all those Wall Street creeps and Bankers are freely roaming American Streets

  12. This guy ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. It plays well abroad for the administration – no one understands it was a parole violation. And in the US there is little sympathy for the guy. It does chill free speech but more realistically just a reminder not to cross the administration even by accident and especially not during an election.

    And comments like this from his lawyer don’t help in the sympathy campaign:

    “The one thing he wanted me to tell all of you is President Obama may have gotten Osama bin Laden, but he didn’t kill the ideology,” Seiden said.

  13. Well randyjet, when the Office of the President gets involved in your charges for “foreign policy reasons” involving something you’ve said that was unpopular, I’m sure you won’t want any legal defense then.

    1. If you want to have a beer party on the steps of the police station and get drunk and rowdy, it is hardly a defense to say that cops don’t arrest people in their homes and/or clubs when they do that. This guy was running a con and did it in the most public way which also caused problems for the USA. So the moral is if you are doing a violation of your parole, DON”T make it so public. I think that if this guy got up in court and told the jiudge to go F**K himself, that you would complain if the judge revoked his parole and sent him back to the slammer.That is NOT a violation of his free speech rights.

  14. I am all for what they did to him. This guy was so blatant about his violations of his parole, he effectively SPIT in the face of the Justice Dept, and he thinks he should get a free pass! THAT alone is outrageous. That any person would take up for him on civil liberties grounds is just as bad. That ranks up there with the Chinese complaining about long lines for voting in the US.

    Give us all a break from this crook and his shenanigans. He needs to be where he is. Maybe he will learn and change his ways since he had no respect for our laws and conditions of parole.

  15. AY,

    Sounds a lot less like saving face than kissing the diametrically opposed spot. As much as I loathed what this clown had to say and how he said it, this is a ridiculous sidelong affront to the 1st Amendment. I would say certain people are spinning in their graves, but I suspect Zombie Madison and Zombie Jefferson are shambling toward the White House at this very moment.

  16. Like I said early on….. They’d get him for something if they could…..all in all its about saving face….

Comments are closed.