Violating Your Probation Publicly Has Consequences
Remember that Egyptian Coptic guy Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – the one who coordinated the making of Innocence of Muslims under an alias? The film with the trailer on the internet that the Obama administration publicly and incorrectly blamed – apparently knowingly or with abject incompetence – for causing the recent unrest in the Islamic world that broke out last month on September 11?
Well, he’s now in Federal custody. And IMO, he deserves it.
What? Isn’t Nakoula being held as a political prisoner for exercise his right to free speech?
In a word: no. Nakoula is being held because he thumbed his nose at the US justice system. Publicly. Like a freaking idiot.
Nakoula is NOT in jail because he made the film in question. He is NOT a political prisoner.
He’s in jail because he’s a convicted felon on probation who publicly and in a very “in your face” way violated the terms of his probation. And he did that in two different ways.
While making Innocence of Muslims under an alias and apparently posting the trailer to the Internet, Nakoula was on parole probation for a 2010 felony conviction for bank fraud. He got parole probation apparently as part of a deal for cooperating with Federal authorities during that case.
Two of the conditions of his parole probation were that Nakoula (1) not use an alias, and (2) not use computers or access the Internet for five years without the approval of his parole probation officer.
Nakoula made Innocence of Muslims using an alias. And it looks like he posted the trailer for the film to the Internet. Did this tool really think no one would ever notice the alias or the film?
So, regardless of freedom of speech issues – yeah, this tool deserves to be in jail. Felons who knowingly violate the terms of their probation deserve jail time.
Especially when they’re idiots.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit, Legal
On the other hand, what about all those illegal aliens with multiple arrests that are caught and released? Or the ones that protest openly in public?
While I have some serious heartburn about the criteria used these days for the selective enforcement of US laws, so-and-so did such-and-such was not an effective defense when I was 6 years old and it still is not.
Anyone who violates the terms of probation has no defense. This clown clearly did. I have no sympathy for whatever he now faces as the result of his own actions.
Ignoring that’s IMO wrong as well, Arby. But it’s also irrelevant to the subject of this article as in general they’re not convicted Federal felons on parole.
There is no Fereral parole. There is, however, Federal probation. The terms are not interchangeable and the media frequently confuse one with the other. Parole is a discretionary release from prison or, sometimes, jail, that is made by a body of the executive branch. Probation, which may or may not follow a prison or jail term, is a discretionary sentencing decision made by a judge.
I can tell you that there is not a single probationer or parolee who is not in violation of his or her supervision at one time or another during their supervision period. This guy likely would not have been arrested for the violation had his situation not made world headlines. Perhaps he would have been back in front of the judge by summons or subpoena but the arrest is political.
Not only is ther no Fereral parole, but there’s no Federal parole either!
That thar is good stuff, AC! Fereral parole occifers would have a wild-eyed look about them. Not to be cornfused with dem TS and A occifers.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The Administration is reaching to find a way to jail him. The video had no relationship to fraud, and he used a “penname” which is common in filmmaking. Countless members of Hollywood use names they were not born to.
Had he used an alias to make a MoveOn,org advertisement, he would not be currently held without bail in a jail cell.
Is it legal? Yes, on a technicality, the new charges are legal.
Is the case being pursued because “someone,” possibly a friend or relative, uploaded a video which was credited to a name not his? No. The case is being pursued because the White House wanted a means to jail those that slandered “the prophet.”
And yesterday, the State Dept warned female US missionaries that Islamist terrorists were planning attacks on them in Egypt, the very kind of thing Nikoula was trying to get attention to: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2012/09/islamists-plan-attacks-on-female-missionairies-in-egypt.html
Do you really think that there were absolutely no political retributions in the arrest and jailing of Nakoula? I agree with a lot posted here. But I think you are way off here.
The part with which I take issue is the manner in which they took him into “custody” when they ‘didn’t arrest” him, as well as the fact that it seems to me as if they’re using him as a whipping boy to appease those who would do us harm.
Gee. If only the Fed would enforce laws against illegal aliens as zealously as they did this.
Yeah, that and the laws regarding interfering with voting, the Defense of Marriage Act, the WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification), any damn law he swore an oath to enforce but then decided he wouldn’t. That, I guess, is the change in the hopey changey thang.
2-17 AirCav: true; parole for virtually all Federal crimes ended in 1984 (those convicted under pre-1984 law remain eligible). I should have caught that error.
All: suit yourselves. I’ve seen enough accounts of “stupid criminal tricks” during my lifetime to believe this guy just was dumb enough to have stepped on his schlong vice being some target for deliberate persecution. What in the hell was his probation officer supposed to do after he was identified by all the major news outlets as the filmmaker and having used an alias in doing so? Ignore him being in blatant violation of his conditions of release?
Conditions involving restriction to future activities may be attached to probation (or to parole, for state crimes). It takes a rather special kind of stupid not to follow those conditions while doing something that will almost certain widespread publicity. The kind of stupid that does something like this and thinks, “Oh, they’ll never notice it’s me.”
And I’m not buying that “nome de plume” argument, WOTN. He claimed to be Israeli and used a false name to conceal his identity. That’s the dictionary definition of using an alias.
Well, I’ll tell the way it actually is. Every day offenders violate their probation and the fact is that if every violation were acted upon by returning the offender to court, no other court matters could be docketed. In this instance, putting aside the political interest, in this guy’s case the question would be whether what he did as a probationer if not a public matter would have resulted in the action that was taken against him. If yes, fine. If no, it’s political. That’s all. His probation officer is probably already on leave, trying to recover from all of the questions and pressures brought to bear thus far.
How many of those probation violations hit all the major media outlets and make national or worldwide headlines, 2-17 AirCav – like this tool’s probation violations did?
I’d wager in such cases (spectacularly public probation or parole violations), the fraction brought in afterwards is pretty damn high. For those that don’t hit the news, you’re correct – often no action is ever taken.
Moral of the story, which I thought was obvious: if you’re thinking about doing something that makes national headlines, and you’re on parole or probation, make damn sure what you do doesn’t show clear evidence of a violation of the conditions of your probation or parole. Like this guy did.
Otherwise you’re rubbing your parole/probation officer’s nose in it. And they don’t tend to like that – especially when their boss asks, “Hey, did you OK that like his parole/probation requires?”
Does anyone besides me see a pattern of misinformation and misbehavior going on here?
First off, no one had heard of that video until the WH brought it up, and it was posted on YouTube in July 2011, which is a year and three months ago. That’s 15 – count’em! 15 months! All of a sudden, it’s the so-called cause of a riot at a US embassy outpost in Libya, when news videos recorded on-scene by the invaders clearly show it was an organized attack.
The Christmas Day underwear bomber was supposed to be a one-off, an isolated individual who was too clumsy to get the job done, when in actuality, he was trained by Al Qaeda.
The Times Square car bomber was supposed to be a lone wolf, another one-off, when he was actually trained in Pakistan by Al Qaeda.
Those two events were before OBL’s death.
There are no terrorists, there are only ….. (fill in the blank).
I’d like to know whether or not they can prove that he actually posted the video online himself. If someone else uploaded it for him, I don’t think they have a case against the guy.
The current arrest was not conducted at the behest of a “parole officer,” but rather as a result of actions of a US Attorney, or subordinate of the President.
He is held without bail, not because using a different name is a heinous crime, but because the US Attorney’s office did not want him to make bail.
Hondo, you may not like to admit that he did what the big named stars in Hollywood do, use a different name than he was born with, but it is in fact a pretty standard thing. And I have seen NO evidence that he knew there was a real person named “Sam Bacile” living in FL.
The fact is that Coptic Christians in Egypt are being murdered in Egypt, as a result of actions of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, and HE attempted to demonstrate that in his amateur video. The fact is that this has gotten worse in the last 3 years. And in all liklihood, he would probably consider that worth a few years in an American jail cell, if ONLY his message had gotten out, instead of a bunch of propaganda that slandering the prophet were “the cause” of violence.
But perhaps you think he should be extradited to Egypt where he faces a trial for making the video, and the death penalty if convicted of, portraying in a video the things written by Muslims in the Surah and the Koran?
Power Point Ranger: uncertain as to that – conspiracy is also a possibility re: posting the movie trailer. But that one will be more difficult.
They appear to have the guy dead to rights for using an alias, though. That was also contrary to the terms of his probation.
I agree wholly that he’s an idiot and should be held accountable, but that only reason it’s been done so in the manner it’s been executed is to save the administration’s ass and deflect blame. He’s an idiot for violating his probabtion and posting it (seriously, who believes that he didn’t?), but picking him up at his home in the middle of the night and “not arresting” him is only to make America (Obama) look hard on transgressions to those in the ME. EVERY news outlet is still referring to him as the “filmmaker who made the film that sparked protests and outrage in the Middle East” when we know damn well that isn’t the case.
He will admit to using the alias but will argue either that:
1) The alias was in use by him and known to the Feds and/or sentencing judge prior to his being placed on probation; and
2) The alias was necessary for his own protection and was not used in furtherance of fraud or any other crime.
Whether or not he is successful will as much depend upon the political bias of the judge as much as anything else.
He will admit to using an alias but will argue either or both of two excuses or justifications:
1) The use of an alias was necessary for his own protection; and
2) The alias was in use and known by the Feds, judge, or both when he received probation and, thus, was not an attempt to hide from them his true identity or used in furtherance of a crime or an attempted crime.
Whether or not these arguments, if made, are successful will depend as much on the political bias of the judge as much as anything else.
Ros, If the arrest was made to demonstrate Obama’s disdain for those who slander mohammed, to appease the offended Islamists, then it was also done for political reasons, and not for reasons of probation infractions.
There is NO similar case which would result in this response. At worst, the use of a penname in a non-related 2nd rate amateur video was a MINOR infraction. In NO other case, would such an offender be arrested, much less held without bail, by a US Attorney.
At best, this is appeasement to the Islamist enemy. At worst, it is a beginning of implementation of Sharia law.
Again, it may be legal by technicality, but there is no precedent in the law for it, and it is the WRONG precedent to set.
What the?
Perceived, disdain- PERCEIVED. It’s all about appearances with this administration. You know that.
Of course it wasn’t done for probation violations, even though that is precisely why it should have been done. If it had been, he’d have been arrested instead of detained indefinitely and “questioned”. He DID violate the perameters of his probation and should be held accountable, but every action taken thus far is indicative of the administration’s desire to lay blame at his feet for the murders in Benghazi.
Any parole that requires one to “not use a computer” is – on its’ face – unconstitutional, thus an unlawful restriction. Of course, neither the Court nor law enforcement is likely to comply with constitutional law unless and until we force them to.
Unconstitutional unless, that is, we have granted the Court authority to tell us which microwave, refrigerator, dishwasher, soda dispensing machine, which car or truck we are allowed to operate, use, ride in, or touch. There is nearly nothing of technological use available without a computer chip of one sport or another. Including telephones and access to free speech type communication devices such as TVs , radios, etc.
So strike the first charge.
As for the other, can law enforcement show, can it prove – definitively – that the film was posted by the accused?
Didn’t think so, because it is way too easy to spoof an IP, hack a login, etc, etc. Absent video or a confession, it can’t be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. And even video is too easy to fake.
Sure seems like a “political prosecution” to me.
The problem, of course, is that most citizens lack the financial wherewithal to fight the attorneys funded by our taxes. It would seem the only way of ensuring fair and equal treatment is to have government pay for any and all defense attorneys. There would be no limit on the number of hours billed; because after all, the government never limits its’ attorneys and their hours.
So unless the gov has other logical ways to meet the American justice standard of “innocent until PROVEN guilty”, they have only one choice: Abandon politically-mandated arrests & prosecutions, or take the hit on being seen as no better than any other tinpot dictatorship.
It is bad optics and supports the narrative that Obama surrendered to the jihadists. Could the Feds have done something a bit more… nuanced? Like “taken into protective custody like Salman Rushdie.”
Now we’ve got several billion enemies who believe we will cave to any POS. And several billion people who desparately yearn for freedom looking elsewhere, like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Canada for freedom.
Carls: Probation is a binding agreement entered into by a defendant and a court. The probation officer is effectively the agent of the court. Thus, the agreement may call for no internet, unannounced visits to a home, warrantless search, and all kinds of stuff otherwise prohibited to the government.
Oh, and Carls, when one signs on the dotted line to obey the rules of his/her probation, all kinds of things may be demanded to be given up. Think some DWI offenders being denied the use of their car and the state taking their license away from them.
Or the child predator that has used a computer in the past, or someone who commits any type of fraud with a computer. The court can and will deny them use of the instrument of their crime, the computer.
And, nothing has to proved “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, only proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Send the son-of-a-bitch to muslimville, goatraperstan with a sign around his neck that he’s the POS that made the video. Guess he’ll wish he was back in US custody.
That many of us have a healthy dose of sympathy for the guy does not negate the fact that he (apparently) knowingly violated an agreement he himself willingly agreed to with the court. My guess is that he has officially admitted to that or he would not still be in custody and/or the info released that he was being charged. No, I am not absolutely certain of that, given the propensity of this group of clowns to lie about things when there is no reason at all to lie.
Yes, I am a very strong proponent of free speech. This guy limited his own first ammendment rights to some degree when he entered into the probation agreement. What he gave up he did willingly.
And of course the political opportunists are twisting this into something outrageous. The occupier is using it to his (or his puppet master’s) full advantage and our detriment.
No, I don’t like it one little bit. But the fact remains that the guy in custody did it to himself and all of us are simply observers. If we apply a different standard to this case based on his ethnicity, the slimey nature of those bringing charges against him, or any factors other than the facts of what he did in violation of an agreement he made then we are as guilty of using situational ethics as those we otherwise criticize.
AirCav has made it quite clear nearly every other violator of probation hasn’t been prosecuted. This one has. Why? He embarrassed the administration.
That’s political persecution. I’ll change my mind when they go after everyone else with the same fervor.
I am not sympathetic to his plight, OWB, and I’m not certain anyone here truly is. It’s just that he is now a political pawn and the legitimacy of the pending violations are tainted. Fact is, he’s criminal and spilled his guts to swing a deal. Screw him–but screw him for the right reason is all.
Jeez. Subject/verb agreement fail. “[L]egitimacy of the pending violations IS tainted.
Kind of Related …
In addition to this tool being jailed for his obvious contempt of the law … I would love to see Susan Rice behind bars … perhaps GITMO … she can do all the apologizing she wants there!
@ 2-17 AirCav: Re the “signed an agreement to comply with probationary terms”. No doubt, but was there any element of coercion involved? Any reasonable person would say “Certainly”. Was a contract between the parolee and the State violated? Most likely, but then, the supreme Court has clarified more than once that a contract must be willingly agreed to absent coercion of any type, and that any contract can not be changed unilaterally; that all parties to the contract must agree to any changes.
I don’t know the accused, nor do I really care about him personally. I do care that our Rule Of Law has been so corrupted that even educated people believe laws MUST be obeyed, even when those laws violate other laws, including the very basis of all our laws. If one law is irrelevant, then so too are most others. Mala in se and mala in pro are two very different concepts.
Kinda sorta like “right” versus “wrong”. In this case, I believe that the court and law enforcement have been corrupted by a politician and his “advisors” who are persecuting rather than prosecuting.
I forgot . . .
“Shadow of a doubt” or “reasonable doubt”. Any competent network security engineer can show how easy it is to spoof internet addresses, either sending or receiving ends. And show how easy it is to break almost any password scheme. Or how simple it is to determine a who the holder of an “anonymous” or “alias” account is, and then forge identities.
There are many government employees who do this every day. Is there any possibility, however slight, in one’s mind that the government could and would entrap someone in this manner if they could gain an advantage thereby?
Not to mention that under American law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And as the record shows, confessions have many times proven to be coerced.
Thus reasonable is cast into the shadow, and doubt is brought to the fore.
Something to think about. Before it’s our turn on the rack.
Carls,
No. Your assertion regarding federal employees is wrong. In fact, I can say with 100 % certainty your implication is unfounded and not based on any truths.
By the way … what is American law?
Futher, you state:
“Any parole that requires one to “not use a computer” is – on its’ face – unconstitutional, thus an unlawful restriction. Of course, neither the Court nor law enforcement is likely to comply with constitutional law unless and until we force them to.”
Wrong … a ferdeal judge can so order someone “NOT TO EAT A HAM SANDWICH”. Further, parole typically has conditions. You violate conditions … you go back to jail. Simple. The judge can order “no ham sandwiches and no computer use.”
BTW are you a lawyer and are you familiar with Federal Law Procedings? They are much more stringent that what you might see on ‘Law and Order” or “CSI Miami.”
Although … I would have to admit … I watch “CSI Miami” for the tail not the law!
“Agree to these terms or stay in prison until your sentence is complete,” is not an example of coercion.
Sorry, Carls–judges can impose conditions on parole/probation/bail as strict or lenient as they feel the circumstances warrant, including who you can and cannot associate with, whether or not you may posess weapons, drugs, or alcohol, etc., etc.
And this can be BEFORE one is convicted of a crime. Upheld, black letter law.
@MCPO: Appreciate the comments. Let’s put aside the documented facts that judges frequently assert authority not founded in the law as it is written and instead “interpret” their way to power. People who don’t look at historical basis of “laws” often miss the underlying rationales.
What I want to point out is this: You said: “Your assertion regarding federal employees is wrong. In fact, I can say with 100 % certainty your implication is unfounded and not based on any truths.”
Are you every employee? Even if you hold the absolute highest clearances and access, do you truly know everything that is being done?
I can say with certainty that “There are many government employees who do this every day.”
So let me repeat: Is there ANY possibility, ANY least little chance,however slight, in your mind that the government could and would entrap someone in this manner if “they” ordered it done?
@NHSparky: If one has not been convicted of a crime, where is the authority to place one on parole found? No crime, no foul? Not so?
Technically speaking the filmmaker can be arrested for violating the terms of his release, but that doesn’t negate the massive politicking behind it (Let’s be real, some innocuous Facebook post would’ve been overlooked and largely ignored, but because “Somebody has to pay”, and clearly the Appeaser-In-Chief lacks the backbone to blame anyone but ourselves, the American people, this producer is a convenient target).
“[B]ut was there any element of coercion involved? Any reasonable person would say “Certainly”.” Made me think of the Three Stooges, as in, “Certainly! Nyuk…nyuk…nyuk.” You’ve got the steel trap going pal so there’s no talking. I do have a law degree. I do have experience in probation and parole violations. I do see no point in discussing this futher.
Terms of probation are pretty cut and dried, or used to be. It’s been a while, but I did have the occasion to deal with folks on probabtion some years ago. Yes, they went to the big house frequently for violations, even seemingly insignificant ones. Especially if they found themselves suspect in a new crime. It was often easier for law enforcement to find a violation than to prove a new case. Factor in that a violation could well mean that you did every day of the time remaining on your probation and it could be a pretty useful investigative tool.
TheTrueAnalyst: personally, I doubt much political influence was brought to bear, if any at all. If this tool’s probation officer was sharp, after media reports surfaced about Nakoula using an alias and being the source for the film in question I’d guess the conversation between him and his boss went something like this:
Supervisor: “Hey, about Nakoula – don’t the terms of his probation prohibit him from . . . ”
PO: “Already on it, boss. Yeah, he violated his probation bigtime – he wasn’t allowed to use an alias or a computer without my permission. I didn’t give him permission. I’ve already contacted the US Attorney’s office to see what they want to do with him.”
I’d guess the conversation between the US Attorney and one of his subordinates went fairly similarly, ending in the statement to the effect, “Bring him in and see what he has to say.” The result was the guy being questioned a couple of times and then being taken into custody for probation violation.