Producer Of Anti-Muslim Film Arrested On Probation Violation
The California man identified as the producer of Innocence Of Muslims, the film that has sparked protests across the Muslim world, was arrested late yesterday on charges related to violation of the terms of his probation on Federal fraud charges:
Los Angeles (CNN) – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man allegedly behind the inflammatory film “Innocence of Muslims,” was ordered held without bail Thursday after being arrested in California and accused of violating his probation.
“He engaged in a likely pattern of deception both to his probation officers and the court,” Judge Suzanne Segal said in issuing her ruling.
The preliminary bail hearing began with Segal asking the defendant — dressed in gray slacks and a white and yellow striped T-shirt, with handcuffs and chain around his waist — what his true name was.
“Mark Basseley Yousseff,” he replied.
The judge then asked again, what is your name?
“Mark Basseley,” he said this time, again without spelling the name out.
The lawyer for the suspect, who has used at least 17 false names, according to court documents, but is mostly referred to as Nakoula, then argued for $10,000 bail.
Attorney Steve Seiden said his client had always maintained contact, in person and by telephone, with probation officers who have been monitoring him since his 2010 bank fraud conviction. But the main reason Nakoula shouldn’t be jailed, his lawyer argued, was for safety reasons, saying the anti-Islam film would make him a target of fellow inmates.
“It is a danger for him to remain in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles because there are a large number of Muslims in there,” Seiden said. “We are extremely concerned about his safety.”
Making no mention of aliases, the lawyer added that Nakoula had made no attempt to flee Southern California and never would.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale then addressed the judge, claiming the man — who he referred to as Nakoula or Bassil — had engaged in a “pattern of deception” and “a person who cannot be trusted.”
Dugdale pointed to a probation report citing eight allegations in which Nakoula had allegedly violated his probation. One of those was a requirement not to use aliases without permission from his probation officer, something the prosecutor said Nakoula did on at least three instances: during his fraud case, when he tried to get a passport in 2011, and during the making of the film. Dugdale said Nakoula had deceived the cast of the film, as well as his probation officers.
The Judge in the case has also set a hearing to determine Nakoula’s actual identity, and there will be a formal revocation hearing at some point in the future. Until then, Nakoula will remain in custody, most likely segregated from the general population for his safety.
No doubt, some people are going to allege that Nakoula is being punished for his association with the movie, but if the allegations made by the U.S. Attorney are true then there seems to be a fairly strong case that he has in fact violated the terms of his probation and indeed may not even be using his correct legal name. Given the nature of his fraud conviction, that would amount to a fairly serious problem.
Good informative post, Doug. Thanks.
What this really is the government thugs, i.e., those who are responsible for keeping paroles and probationers down, used common tactics but in this case, with greater political significance. As a probationer, this guy actually does belong to the government and until he is free and clear, he will be subjected to the “whims” of the federal authorities to keep him aware of his property status. Just so happens, the government was able to use this common practice to show common cause with the muslim thugs overseas.
But the government men’s actions were geared to send a message not to him but to anyone who might dare upset the savages in some foreign land. No doubt, had he not been owned by the government, he’d be up on charges of using pesticide in violation of the directions or tearing mattress tags off, or selling children’s toys and clothing at a yard sale, etc.
@JKB:
Bullshit. If it weren’t, Terry Jones would also be in jail for his many attempts to enrage Muslims, some successful. Alas, he is free as a bird, and you are dumb as a post.
@JKB: And, right on cue, the members of the “law & order” party make themselves look even more ridiculous by championing the cause of a serial con artist and parole violator.
jkb:
Pay no attention to what Popehat said. And a new post by him with additional details is here.
Also, you’re a liar.
Is there some law forbidding prosecutors to take external factors into account in exercising their discretion?
Would Capone have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he hadn’t been a gangster?
@JKB:
Right… just like the feds locked Terry Jones away after his Koran Burning stint.
Oh wait… that never happened.
Why do you make crap like this up?
“It’s not free speech if WE don’t like it!”
“He’s exempt from parole requirements if he says mean things about people we don’t like!”
If he violated his terms, he violated his terms.
Although I do think he has been turned into a scapegoat by the government (I think the movie was the convenient excuse for the various demonstrations-it was 9-11 there were going to be demonstrations with or without this movie).
I wonder if Treacher and the rest of the wingnut brain trust will explain to us why they think criminals should be exempt from prosecution if they also publicly insult Muslims. Don’t you think such a system, apart from the fact that it is against some very bedrock American principles, would invite quite a bit of abuse?
“Sure, your honor, I killed him and stole his car, but I also posted a video on YouTube calling Muslims dirty scum.”
Case dismissed!
And yet, JKB and Treacher actually think he is being persecuted for his speech…
John Cole summarized the problem:
As phrased by BoingBoing:
Well crap. How many of us suggested that here and were told that it was an unreasonable guess?
If someone was on probation for a felony and were told to get permission to leave the state and showed up on television in a different state without such permission, the probation officer and court would be remiss to not act on public information. Isn’t that functionally what happened here?
“As phrased by BoingBoing:”
With all respect to BoingBoing: what’s their source? The charging document is still under seal (I just checked on PACER), BoingBoing links to itself for the proposition, and I haven’t yet seen any news stories listing the particular charges.
I don’t know if this sheds any light on what you’re asking:
I like this part: “He has used at least 17 false names, according to court documents.”
Or this:
The guy is a professional liar. No wonder Republicans see him as a hero.
That’s better data, jukeboxgrad. But it’s still a little unclear. It’s not clear how much of that DigDug (his nickname in the office, at least long ago) was articulating those things because they went to flight risk, and how much was him listing charges.