56 Comments

1. Grifter  •  Sep 27, 2012 @5:11 pm
   

   So, dumb thing:

   I never realized until recently that probation/parole/supervised release could be different things, and that they were not necessarily optional.

   I was always under the impression it was "(more) jail time, or…" (and therefore the choice is usually an obvious one), but I realized during this thing that he was on supervised release whether he agreed or not, correct?

2. Ken  •  Sep 27, 2012 @6:06 pm
   

   @Grifter: for modern federal cases, probation is what you get if you are lucky and don't get put in jail for a conviction. Supervised release is what you get after your jail term. "Parole" no longer exists for modern cases; the only people on parole are people who were sentenced under the pre-Sentencing-Guidelines regime more than 25 years ago.

   Yes, none of it is voluntary.

3. Jack B.  •  Sep 27, 2012 @6:57 pm
   

   In Texas, we have "mandatory supervision" for those who didn't get paroled, but have completed their sentences due to the accumulation of "good time". From what I understand, no in Texas prisons does every single day of their sentence. I have a friend who did 5½ years of a 6 year sentence. He was denied parole at every turn and lost all his good time because he kept getting caught with tattoo paraphernalia. Still, he got out 6 months early with that last six months under mandatory supervision.

   And btw, he's doing 30 years now. Crime doesn't pay, kids.

4. Luc  •  Sep 27, 2012 @7:10 pm
   

   It's possible that the allegation that he used misrepresentation to get the thing filmed, and thus willfully exposed the cast and crew to danger (of public disgust, if nothing else) without telling them, is the hook on which they'll hang this hat.

5. Waldo  •  Sep 27, 2012 @7:45 pm
   

   @ Luc,

   That doesn't make much sense to me. I would think the danger to the community is a prospective test, not retrospective. If that's correct, then there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of danger that he's going to produce another film while out and dupe people into participating thereby exposing them to danger. Besides, the idea that you're a danger because someone else might react violently to a part played in a film doesn't strike me as likely to satisfy the legal standard of being dangerous to the community.

6. Waldo  •  Sep 27, 2012 @7:49 pm
   

   I would think from a political standpoint with this whole Muslim rage thing slipping from the front page that there's no upside for the Obama administration to go out of its way to put this guy in jail. Anyways, I don't see the political advantage to them to do this.

7. Luc  •  Sep 27, 2012 @7:56 pm
   

   @ Waldo:

   My point went to the theory they'll be using to violate his parole, not anything relating to dangerousness.

   Although, that being said, I should point out that if there exists more footage (and remember, the 14 minute video was called a "trailer"), that would definitely mean that there exists a potential danger to other cast and crew.

8. Waldo  •  Sep 27, 2012 @8:00 pm
   

   "The nature of the charges, and how the matter proceeds, will be evidence we should review to test the accusation some have made that the Obama Administration induced the U.S. Probation Office (an arm of the U.S. Courts, not of the executive branch) to investigate. If that happened, it's a matter of grave concern that should have serious consequences."

   I'm not sure what to think if the Obama Administration somehow induced the Probation Office to investigate. I guess there's a wide range of things that could fall under "induce" and it might depend upon exactly what was done. I'd think there's nothing wrong with a citizen contacting the Probation Office and informing them that someone on probation acted in violation of his or her probation or even urging them to revoke someone's probation. OTOH, it feels wrong if the Administration is somehow twisting arms to get a guy's probation revoked that otherwise would not have happened (even if he is in violation of his probation). Is it a problem someone in the Administration simply calls the Probation Office and does what would be perfectly fine for an ordinary citizen to do? Perhaps that's inherently coercive? Is there any legal violations going on? I really don't have any opinions on these questions, but think this whole topic might be an interesting one to explore more.

9. Chris R.  •  Sep 27, 2012 @8:19 pm
   

   The Los Angeles Times pretty much wants him to go to jail for the movie not and any actual crimes he committed. Their headline and initial paragraph even tries to link the movie with his violations of release.

10. Matthew Cline  •  Sep 27, 2012 @8:24 pm
    

    The nature of the charges, and how the matter proceeds, will be evidence we should review to test the accusation some have made that the Obama Administration induced the U.S. Probation Office (an arm of the U.S. Courts, not of the executive branch) to investigate. If that happened, it's a matter of grave concern that should have serious consequences. But I'd like to see evidence of it before reaching any conclusion.

    The thing is, it's entirely possible that 1) the government authorities who arrested him did so solely because of his violations of supervised release conditions, but 2) they wouldn't have become aware of those violations if not for the promptings of the Obama administration. If that's the case, I don't see how the nature of the charges would reveal anything. However, if that is what happened, it's much less serious than if it was a case of it being that these are violations the Probation Office would usually ignore, but the administration pressured them into arresting him anyways.

11. EH  •  Sep 27, 2012 @8:26 pm
    

    Well this is just sounding more and more CIA every day.

12. AlphaCentauri  •  Sep 27, 2012 @8:44 pm
    

    The issues as far as him being a danger to the public might relate to his connection to Steve Klein, who was involved in the production of Innocence of Muslims:

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, said Klein is a former Marine and longtime religious-right activist who has helped train paramilitary militias at a California church. It described Klein as founder of Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques.

    "It quoted Klein as saying he believes that California is riddled with Muslim Brotherhood sleeper cells 'who are awaiting the trigger date and will begin randomly killing as many of us as they can.'"

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511893/new-questions-about-makers-of-anti-muslim-film-as-shadowy-details-emerge/

    If a weapon were found on Nikoula's property, or if there is concern he was raising money for weapons for American or Egyptian militias, it would not be a huge surprise.

13. David  •  Sep 27, 2012 @8:45 pm
    

    The guy's use of an alias was broadcast over pretty much every media outlet in the country after this thing hit. I'm willing to bet his probation officer picked up a newspaper, saw the name "Nakoula," and freaked the fuck out. God knows I'd be afraid of my boss physically ripping my head off if keeping this guy out of trouble had been my responsibility.

14. nrasmuss13  •  Sep 27, 2012 @9:11 pm
    

    I guess this is a good example of the fact that speech may be free, but sometimes you'd better be squeaky clean yourself. Not sure how I feel about that, although I admit I find it hard to feel too bad for Mr. Nakoula. I guess what I'm curious about is what potential trouble this guy may be in down the road – I keep hearing him described as an "Egyptian Copt," and if he's a convicted felon (who has now (potentially) violated his probation) isn't this guy running the risk that INS ships his butt back to Egypt?

15. Rich Rostrom  •  Sep 27, 2012 @11:08 pm
    

    I'm seeing reports the arraignment was closed to the public and the media. That's incredibly unusual.

    It's also incredibly unusual for an arraignee to have millions of people calling for his death, or to have a high official of a foreign government offer a bounty for killing him.

16. TheBlackCat  •  Sep 27, 2012 @11:55 pm
    

    @ Matthew Cline: "they wouldn't have become aware of those violations if not for the promptings of the Obama administration. If that's the case, I don't see how the nature of the charges would reveal anything."

    As Waldo said, is there anything wrong with the Obama administration simply bringing it to their attention? I agree that would depend on whether it is coercive or not, I guess, but I am not sure it is inherently coercive. I think it would depend on exactly how they phrased it.

    However I would be surprised if it really reached that point. This was so widely publicized that it would need to be an incredibly incompetent office to not find out on his or her own.

17. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 28, 2012 @1:05 am
    

    Maybe the 'danger to the public' is that in doing something so high profile that is a pretty much automatic 'go to jail, go directly to jail' violation of his release, he has demonstrated the common sense that God gave a turnip. You know, as in "This may be the stupidest man on the face of the Earth. Perhaps we should shoot him."? (from RUTHLESS PEOPLE)

18. bvierra  •  Sep 28, 2012 @1:31 am
    

    The reason it looks like they would not let him go on bail is that he used a different name in court than he did last time.

    "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula told a judge his real name was Mark Basseley Youseff. He said he'd been using that name since 2002, even though he went by Nakoula in his fraud case."

    The prosecution argued that he was a flight risk because he couldn't get his name right, one of those either you are lieing to the court now, or you lied to the court last time ordeals.

    "The court has a lack of trust in this defendant at this time," Judge Suzanne Segal said. He is being held without bond until another judge holds a hearing to see if he broke the terms of the supervised release.

    The moral of this story, when you are convicted of fraud while using an alias, it is probably better to not use a different name in front of the Judge when you are picked up for supervised release revocation.

    He is being held without bond until another judge holds a hearing to see if he broke the terms of the supervised release.

    Also from the ABC report (linked at the bottom of this post) the court was closed to media only, however they had the proceedings in another court room televised. (on a different note, I can understand this happening. You see judges all of the time yelling at the reports to be quiet to quit typing so loud. In a high profile case such as this, it seems reasonable to me to have them in a separate room where they can see what is going on but not bother the court with noise.)

    Prosecutors also said that none of the violations involved using the internet, my guess is multiple for using aliases and some for fraud.

    ABC News Story / AP: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/authorities-man-anti-islam-film-arrested-17343330#.UGVfu03A-Qe

19. Jack B.  •  Sep 28, 2012 @1:38 am
    

    The guy's use of an alias was broadcast over pretty much every media outlet in the country after this thing hit. I'm willing to bet his probation officer picked up a newspaper, saw the name "Nakoula," and freaked the fuck out. God knows I'd be afraid of my boss physically ripping my head off if keeping this guy out of trouble had been my responsibility.

    I can imagine the conversations in the Probation/Supervision office.

    Monday, September, 10, 2012:
    Department head: Jones, how's that client of yours? Naka… Nako… whatshisname?
    Jones: Oh, Nakoula? He's staying out of trouble. I mean, he might have uploaded a video to YouTube, but other than that, I don't see any problems.

    Tuesday, September 11, 2012:
    Department head: JOOOOOOONES! In my office! Now!

20. JRM  •  Sep 28, 2012 @7:12 am
    

    For those interested in the various releases on a state level, California has a few:

    1. Parole: Used to be for all former prisoners (people sentenced for more than a year). Now it's for a tiny subset of former inmates. Usually three years.

    2. Post-release community supervision. The local probation department monitors you after you get out of prison. Lasts about a year.

    3. Mandatory supervision. Different from the above in that this applies to people sentenced to jail for more than a year. (In California, you can now get sentenced to local jail for a very long time indeed – a decade or more on sentences that used to be served in prison. You don't actually do anywhere near your actual sentence.) This is under the new split-sentence rules.

    4. Probation. Probation can be on felonies or misdemeanors, with or without actual jail time. (Note: "Actual jail time" includes jail alternatives like electronic monitoring.) Probation is voluntary; you can tell the judge you don't want it, but you are likely to get a much longer sentence. Probation is usually three years. On misdemeanors, it's generally an instruction to obey the law, sometimes with search terms or stay-away orders. On felonies, it's more onerous (reporting, not leaving county without permission, that sort of thing.)

    I don't seriously fault the Times for getting the terminology incorrect; people who ought to know foul them up. But for those in the business, the terminology matters.

21. Nicholas Weaver  •  Sep 28, 2012 @7:42 am
    

    Yeah, admitting in court NOW that you used an alias when you were convicted for fraud for using a bunch of aliases, and accepted a plea bargain can't be good for maintaining your federal probation status.

    So even after being restricted from using aliases, and doing under-the-table financial transactions, said scumbag used more aliases and did significant under-the-table transactions, its hard to not be surprised that he's considered a flight risk and he's now being violated…

22. Jonathan Corbett  •  Sep 28, 2012 @7:58 am
    

    What an excellent message we are sending to the violent mobs: Be violent and we'll suspend freedom of speech and arrest whoever you want.

    Even if you don't (or don't yet) believe that this was motivated by a desire to suppress speech that the government doesn't like, it's easy to appreciate how dangerous this move is.

23. David  •  Sep 28, 2012 @8:31 am
    

    At the same time, it's also a dangerous move to say that you can literally advertise your crimes on international television, and we'll leave you alone as long as you pissed off the bad guys. Ideally he'd have been taken into custody with no publicity and no special treatment, but with all the press attention on him, that was never going to happen no matter what the politics of his case are.

24. Nicholas Weaver  •  Sep 28, 2012 @8:49 am
    

    Jonathan: This appears to be a very careful violating that is not about Mr "Necula's" freedom of speech, but about multiple, significant, and serious behavior in direct violation of his supervisory release agreement.

    If he made a film about the Amish that was completely ignored, with an assumed name, with significant undisclosed financing, and even used an alias in his plea bargain for financial fraud, you could be certain his supervisory release would be revoked, but just without the media circus.

    The only thing of real note is the "no bail because of danger to community". But the admitting to having used an alias when he was convicted the first time should be enough to ensure no bail.

    The lesson: don't commit a series of violations on your supervisory release and broadcast it to the world.

25. Kent Gatewood  •  Sep 28, 2012 @2:10 pm
    

    Flight risk back to Egypt.

26. Kris  •  Sep 28, 2012 @5:01 pm
    

    My first assumption about the 'danger to community' part (and please be gentle, for IANAL) is that the judge had reasonable enough suspicion that if released he could be targeted by extremists in a manner that would put others in harm's way.

    Unreasonable?

27. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 28, 2012 @5:07 pm
    

    bvierra,

    Sounds like a case of "We'll just keep this slippery SOB where we can put our hands on him when we want to."

28. James Pope  •  Sep 28, 2012 @5:25 pm
    

    Can willful disregard for public safety by promoting inflammatory speech be grounds for danger to community notes? Can you revoke someone's release if you can make a compelling argument that they're going to incite a riot?

    I don't have a problem with any of this really. On a practical level, I think putting him in jail and sitting on him for as long as legally allowed might be better for the political situation abroad and in the longer term his own personal safety. If there were actually massive amounts of secret Muslim terror cells lurking in California, this guy is a walking dead man right?

29. Ken  •  Sep 28, 2012 @5:29 pm
    

    Regarding "danger to the community": I'd like to see what the transcript shows. However, for what it is worth, prosecutors routinely argue that repeat fraudsters are a "financial danger to the community."

    If the judge meant that he's a danger in the sense that "fanatics react violently to him," then that's contemptible.

30. Kris  •  Sep 28, 2012 @5:54 pm
    

    Thanks for the clarification, Ken.

31. John David Galt  •  Sep 28, 2012 @7:52 pm
    

    Can we all please stop repeating the claim, long since proven false, that the video provoked the embassy attacks? The attackers planned and armed to make them before the video was ever uploaded.

    And in any case, governments never have any business banning anyone from using the Internet to spread his political views. The public should be demanding all such probation conditions be relaxed permanently.

32. AlphaCentauri  •  Sep 28, 2012 @8:58 pm
    

    The problem is, what constitutes political speech? Anyone can claim false advertising is political speech. People selling snake oil remedies routinely make political claims that the government is trying to suppress their products because if their supposed cure for cancer/AIDS/MS/etc were made available to the public, the Big Drug Companies would go out of business.

33. Matthew Cline  •  Sep 28, 2012 @10:38 pm
    

    Yeah, a policy of "pissing off the extermists equals a Get Out Of Jail Free card" isn't something I could support.

34. Myk  •  Sep 29, 2012 @2:48 am
    

    New Zealand media are reporting he's been arrested and jailed solely on the basis of the use of multiple aliases; no mention of the financial aspect. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/7747918/Anti-Islam-filmmaker-lied-about-identity

35. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 29, 2012 @6:56 am
    

    John David Galt,

    As Ken pointed out earlier (http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/15/a-few-stray-saturday-thoughts-about-the-the-innocence-of-muslims-video/) it is highly likely that the minute it came to the attention of the relevant authorities that Nakoula had, once again, been doing business under an alias, Nakoula was headed back to prison. There may be censorious pillocks in the Obama administration. There probably are. And said pillocks may be absolutely delighted that Nakoula has been taken back into custody. There may, further, be an element of auto-da-fe in the way Nakoula was taken into custody. But until we hear that he haas been charged with something strongly connected to the content of his youTube video, I think it is safe to say that he is getting treated much the way any other convicted scam-artist who was caught doing business under an alias would be treated.

36. James Pollock  •  Sep 29, 2012 @9:09 am
    

    "Can we all please stop repeating the claim, long since proven false, that the video provoked the embassy attacks?"
    I suppose we could, except that you're conflating the Libyan consulate attacks with the Cairo protests (and other places, later). The Libya attacks were terrorist attacks. The Cairo mob violence was "about" a lot of things.

37. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Sep 29, 2012 @9:48 am
    

    James Pollock,

    How about we start an honest discussion of whether we possibly SHOULD be provoking Radical Islam the world over. When I was growing up there were several places around the globe where Islam's treatment of women and minorities was approaching the early 19th century. Those are mostly gone now, swamped by a tidal wave of intolerant barbarism. Economies that were beginning to show signs of Victorian dynamism have regressed into 13th Century poverty. This is largely the fault of Islamic Radicalism and the nitwits over here who excuse it.

    I'm not saying that we should conquer the world and make them live our way, but I AM saying that we should be prepared to give regular and stringent lessons in what does or does not constitute acceptable behavior.

    We aren't going to convince the radicals to give up Jihad because it isn't nice. We might be able to get them to give up Jihad because it's going to get them pounded like cheap veal.

38. AlphaCentauri  •  Sep 29, 2012 @1:05 pm
    

    "Provoking" people rarely accomplishes the goal of having them rethink their point of view. Once it becomes a matter of them feeling disrespected, they will dig in their heels and defend their side of the argument with their frontal lobes in full shutdown mode.

    I'd rather see American TV shows and films that include characters who happen to be Muslims, living normal lives as American citizens, respecting characters who happen to be Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc, and being respected in return. Have THOSE subtitled in Arabic dialects so Innocence of Muslims isn't the sole representation of US attitudes toward Islam that is available to people who are not highly educated and who don't know enough English to enjoy English language entertainment.

39. Floyd McWilliams  •  Sep 29, 2012 @1:41 pm
    

    This appears to be a very careful violating that is not about Mr "Necula's" freedom of speech, but about multiple, significant, and serious behavior in direct violation of his supervisory release agreement.

    Yeah. Assisting someone in the production of a video that offends Muslims is a very serious matter.

40. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2012 @2:37 pm
    

    I really don't know why the fuck I bother sometimes.

41. Michael Ejercito  •  Sep 29, 2012 @5:39 pm
    

    Floyd,

    that the government arrests someone for a crime because that someone's use of freedom of speech calls attention to evidence of that someone's criminal activity does not violate freedom of speech.

42. Floyd McWilliams  •  Sep 29, 2012 @6:57 pm
    

    @Michael Ejercito: Let's be more precise: A court will not intervene on the grounds that the probation office's visit violated free speech. But private citizens like myself are entitled to their opinion that the action stinks to high heaven. (I mean seriously. FIVE myrmidons? At midnight?) Consider Ken's latest post on the prosecution of material aid to terrorists, which was applauded in the comments section — though no one claimed that such prosecutions are invalid under law.

    @Ken: I am sorry that you feel that way. I enjoy your blog, and even if I disagree with things you have said on this issue, you have provided me with much useful information on the subject. So I will present a more substantive comment, and perhaps you will not be seized with despair[1]:

    The general sense of the discussion seems to be that Nakoula brought his troubles upon himself, that once he was revealed as a "producer" and a "filmmaker", the relevant agencies had no alternative but to investigate. (Sending over five cops. At midnight. Okay, I'll stop.)

    But … being a "filmmaker", even of a Youtube video, does not necessarily involve using a computer. And being a "producer" does not of necessity require the transfer of money. I realize that these two things are extremely *likely*. But they are not *certain*. (Perhaps Nakoula was listed as producer … because no one else was
    willing to associate his or her name with the movie.)

    What triggered my original snarky comment was an earlier comment describing Nakoula's actions as "multiple, significant and serious behavior". Come on. What Nakaoula did was itself *not a crime*. No one was harmed or defrauded. Failure of Nakoula's parole officers to investigate this issue does not fall into the same category as, say, reading the sports page while your 13-year-old walks up to the liquor cabinet and starts chugging Jim Beam.

    In fact, if the authorities declined to get involved, I'm pretty sure that it would be seen as not wanting to interfere in a high-profile free speech case. Right? I don't think there would be many jokes about lazy cops eating donuts.

    [1] Rereading before posting, this seems presumptuous. You might roll your eyes because I'm a moron, that's fine. I just don't want you to think I'm a troll.

43. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2012 @7:18 pm
    

    Come on. What Nakaoula did was itself *not a crime*.

    Do tell.

    Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale said in federal court Thursday that Nakoula had applied for a passport in one name, obtained a driver’s license under another and used a third name — which he spelled various ways -– while working on the film.

    You know, I prosecuted people for applying for passports in false names. They got convicted.

    I guess I'm going to have to write another mea culpa post.

    (Sending over five cops. At midnight. Okay, I'll stop.)

    Clearly, if you want to interview a guy now being hunted by Muslim fanatics, whose house is surrounded by a horde of aggressive media, you should have a 45-year-old probation officer with no weapon and no law enforcement training drive her Nissan Leaf over to his house.

    It would be inappropriate to ask the local Sheriff to assist, as you routinely do for probation checks under an agreement between U.S. Probation and local law enforcement.

    However, if you do have law enforcement assist with your probation interview, you want to make sure to release him immediately and transport him and his family to an undisclosed location away from the media following him. You know, as a double bluff.

44. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2012 @7:29 pm
    

    Also: it is absolutely essential that when you send a team of thugs in an unconstitutional nighttime raid to retaliate against his First Amendment rights, which is an arrest no matter what any Fauxbama-apologist Islamacist-sympathizing anti-speech people say, under no circumstances should you handcuff him like you do everyone else you put under arrest. Because, again, double-bluff.

45. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2012 @7:33 pm
    

    Also: when staging a nighttime totalitarian raid to sweep up a speechcriminal to deter speech that is embarrassing to your terrorist-appeasing regime, it is essential that you detain him for an entire half hour. No, not a minute less — half an hour — the length of an entire Modern Family episode, including commercials.

46. Floyd McWilliams  •  Sep 29, 2012 @9:10 pm
    

    My point was not that Nakoula is innocent of any crimes. I am entirely unsurprised to learn that a scammer/user of multiple identities is in danger of going back to the pokey for more of the same.

    My point was that picking up the paper and reading that Nakoula was a "filmmaker" and a "producer" was not in and of itself evidence that he had violated his probation. If he had uploaded/produced "Gangnam Style" instead, would we be having this discussion at all? I doubt it.

    (For that matter if he had produced music videos, instead of a film that pissed off a billion people, he might have had considerably less interest in a fake passport.)

    As for the midnight arrest, I am unaware that "aggressive media" typically pose a threat to law officers (or to the people that they arrest). If there was a worry about Muslim fanatics, why leave him hanging till midnight? And if the interview was to last a mere non-intimidating 30 minutes … why not conduct it at his home?

47. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2012 @9:30 pm
    

    Come on. What Nakaoula did was itself *not a crime*.

    My point was not that Nakoula is innocent of any crimes.

    Okay.

    My point was that picking up the paper and reading that Nakoula was a "filmmaker" and a "producer" was not in and of itself evidence that he had violated his probation.

    Nobody said it was.

    However, picking up a paper and learning that the convict you are supervising on supervised release — who was convicted of using aliases to scam more than $700k from banks, and who has a supervised release term forbidding use of aliases — is conducting business under an alias? That's evidence that he violated his supervised release.

    If he had uploaded/produced "Gangnam Style" instead, would we be having this discussion at all? I doubt it.

    I understand that's what you believe.

    Nakoula was convicted of alias-related bank fraud. The papers suggested that he had produced a movie under an alias, including hiring actors and staff and locations. Under the alias, he bragged about getting financing — maybe that part was made up, maybe it wasn't. He had terms of release forbidding him from using aliases, and terms requiring him to disclose all bank accounts and other finances to his probation officer — who, in reading the paper, would know she didn't know about any movie financing. He owed $700k in restitution for his past crimes, and his probation officer was responsible for monitoring his finances to make sure he was paying a fair share of all money he earned or obtained.

    But you think there wouldn't be interest in him, or in him committing a new federal crime, if he were making a different film.

    I'm not sure why I am talking to you, because I don't think there's anything that will ever move you from your preconceived notion. I could bring other people who were federal prosecutors for longer than I, and have been federal defense lawyers for longer than I. I could even get federal probation officers. But that wouldn't persuade you, would it?

    As for the midnight arrest, I am unaware that "aggressive media" typically pose a threat to law officers (or to the people that they arrest). If there was a worry about Muslim fanatics, why leave him hanging till midnight? And if the interview was to last a mere non-intimidating 30 minutes … why not conduct it at his home?

    Tell me. Can you say, based on your own knowledge, or based on evidence, where probation interviews typically take place?

    Can you say, based on your own experience or based on evidence, what protocols law enforcement or probation officers use when they want to visit or escort someone whose home is surrounded by media?

    Can you say, based on your own experience or based on evidence, when Nakoula and his lawyer and the probation officer and the Sheriff started discussing a meeting, and when they finished?

48. Floyd McWilliams  •  Sep 29, 2012 @10:59 pm
    

    Ken,

    This is not pointless. I have learned a lot talking to you. You obviously know far more than I do about the criminal justice system. I can understand how infuriating it must be to argue with someone who knows far less about this subject than you.

    But … this issue affects me directly. I value my freedom of speech. I fear that Nakoula's arrest represents a lessening of my freedom of speech. So I feel compelled to form an opinion on the matter despite having incomplete knowledge.

    I am not objecting to standard police procedure[1]. I am objecting to police procedure in an unusual and high-profile case. I wish that the officials involved had behaved in a way to reassure the public that they were not taking sides on the merits of "Innocence of Muslims". I realize that actions like not surrounding Nakoula with multiple officers, appearing in daytime, or waiting until the media crush had subsided, may not be typical.

    [1] Except for the part where people get rousted out of their bed in the middle of the night. But I concede that I might have entirely different sensibilities if I dealt with criminals on a regular basis.

49. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2012 @11:07 pm
    

    Except for the part where people get rousted out of their bed in the middle of the night. But I concede that I might have entirely different sensibilities if I dealt with criminals on a regular basis.

    Multiple news reports indicate that Nakoula agreed to the interview and being picked up was by pre-arrangement. What is the evidence that he was rousted out of bed?

    I wish that the officials involved had behaved in a way to reassure the public that they were not taking sides on the merits of "Innocence of Muslims".

    How would this be done? Who would do it — the U.S. Probation Department, or the Sheriffs that assist them on some interviews? Is there a law, or regulation, or policy governing when the U.S. Probation Office must make such a statement? How does that law, or regulation, or policy interact with the laws and regulations and policies generally limiting Probation Office comment on their supervisees and cases? Is it an exception?

50. Ken  •  Sep 29, 2012 @11:15 pm
    

    And Floyd, I was frustrated by your first comment, and part of your subsequent comments, because it seemed that I had carefully written about the topic using actual facts, and that you had come onto the site and commented without, as far as I could tell, reading those facts or paying attention to them at all.

51. theNuszAbides  •  Sep 30, 2012 @1:12 am
    

    Rich Rostrom said:
    It's also incredibly unusual for an arraignee to have millions of people calling for his death, or to have a high official of a foreign government offer a bounty for killing him.

    lose the 'incredibly' and ya gotcherself an accurate statement right there.

52. markm  •  Sep 30, 2012 @7:34 am
    

    IMO, Nassoula wasn't making a movie – he only made a movie trailer, to attract investors to a scam. And a convicted con man who uses false names for bank accounts damned well ought to get his parole revoked.

    What worries me is that this was not noticed until he became notorious.

53. Joe Pullen  •  Sep 30, 2012 @8:40 am
    

    @markm – I'm not surprised it wasn't noticed earlier. The volume of mortgage fraud, healthcare and insurance fraud, securities fraud, mass marketing/telemarketing fraud, money laundering, etc that is going on today in the USA is staggering. I suspect we spend nowhere near the $500 billion we’ve spent over the last 35 years against the failed “war on drugs”.

    It’s easier to commit mass marketing fraud today than it is to sneak an ounce of weed across the Mexican border (not that I’ve attemped either one BTW).

54. Floyd McWilliams  •  Sep 30, 2012 @9:18 am
    

    (This will be my last comment on the subject.)

    Ken, I can understand how my original comment would upset you. I apologize for making it.

    I would not expect a law governing this situation, I can't imagine that being workable. What I would expect is that the same officer who read about Nakoula in the newspaper would also read of riots in Egypt, an attack (supposedly, at the time) on an embassy, domestic articles saying things like "Has free speech gone too far?". He would recognize that this is an exceptional case. And he would go to his superior and say "Should I pick this guy up? Would that cause more trouble?"

    And at some point someone in a position of authority could say, "let's go slow." Or "Let's think about how it will look when we send officers over. Really, midnight? I know he's a night owl, but daytime would look better."

    (Note that this doesn't require a devotion to civil liberties, just a natural disinclination to piss off your boss by jumping into a volatile situation.)

55. David Brooks  •  Sep 30, 2012 @6:08 pm
    

    " In fact, I would be very surprised if a guy with such a fraud conviction who produced a movie under an alias and engaged in undisclosed financial transactions didn't get hit with a revocation proceeding, whatever the nature of the movie.

    In my opinion, if Nakoula had made "The Innocence of Mormons" the federal government would not have leaned on YouTube to pull the video, nor would the DOJ would have him arrested and furthermore insisted he be held without bail.

    Ken, I am sure that as a prosecutor you would not let politics influence your recommendations to revoke probation. Obama and Holder do not inspire confidence, especially after Obama tried to have YouTube delete the video, called it "disgusting", said that "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander The Prophet Of Islam", and dishonestly claimed the video was the cause of the 9/11 attacks on U.S. embassies.

    It is clear to me that the Nakoula's real crime was making the offensive video, from reading the LA Times and other media sources ( http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-aliases-innocence-muslims.html) –he won't be charged with "blasphemy" but with offenses while making the video.

    From the LA times article:"Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered Nakoula detained, citing a “lengthy pattern of deception” by the man, adding that he poses “some danger to the community” …Prosecutors told Segale They said Nakoula was a man who “simply cannot be trusted” and whose deceptions had caused “real harm.” Segal said Nakoula had failed to prove he wasn’t a flight risk. "
    The "real harm" and "danger to the community" is obviously his the controversial message of his video. The "flight risk" is dubious, he has a house, a family in the Calif., and where is he going to abscond to, Egypt?
    I'm half way though "Three Felonies A Day" (only $1.99 at the Kindle store) and federal prosecutors can find reasons to put in jail anyone who who that don't like, they won't say it is because you exercised your 1st amendment rights, it will because you violated the near infinite federal laws and regulations and the interpretations procurators can put on them. Nakoula being on federal parole is extra vulnerable but the reality is anybody trying to make such a movie is at risk, and the jailing of Nakoula lets us all know what the risk is.
    Let's consider a case where another "artist" rips off an AP photograph to "create" the "Hope" poster, sues AP, fabricates and destroys evidence, and doubles his business from $3 to $6 million as a result of using his stolen artwork? If he is a big time Obama supporter, NO jail time, probation, a token $25,00 fine. http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c259a6c168244fabbf1077f275f6c930/US–AP-Poster-Artist And if you research Shepard Fairey, you will find that ripoffs of other peoples' work is his M.O., not an anomaly.

56. Ken  •  Sep 30, 2012 @6:35 pm
    

    Fuck this noise. It is literally fucking pointless to try to explain any facts about this case or about how the federal criminal justice system works. I'm done.

2 Trackbacks

• Sep 27, 2012: US Consulate in Libya, Embassy in Egypt Attacked By Protesters Over Anti-Islam Film - Page 17 - SLUniverse Forums
• Sep 28, 2012: Nakoula’s Arrest and Imprisonment: The Big Chill | Ethics Alarms