.
Feedback

WATCH: Deputies Escort Embattled Anti-Islam Filmmaker Out of Home

The filmmaker's anti-Islam movie is being blamed for spurring a rage of violence in the Middle East.

Editor's Note: Click on the video to the right to watch the Patch footage of Nakoula being escorted from his home by sheriff's deputies. Click here for a complete photo gallery of the Sept. 15 exit from his Cerritos, CA home.

After a three-day long media stakeout outside the home of a Cerritos man linked to the making of the anti-Islam movie that has ignited a firestorm of outrage and violence abroad, Cerritos Sheriff's Station deputies on Saturday escorted the filmmaker, whose face was cloaked in secrecy, out of his residence shortly after midnight.

The late night exit began when four Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department vehicles, including an unmarked car, carrying members of the Cerritos Station's Special Assignment Operations (SAO) team rolled up to the scene of the media blitzed cul-de-sac and quickly made their way toward a gate on the left side of the two-story home. After one of the deputies knocked on the black wrought-iron gate, the entrance swung open and two SAO team members made entry into the home's backyard. Meanwhile five deputies stoically stood in front of the gate as a handful of news crews stood by documenting the operation in progress. LASD spokesman Steve Whitmore and Cerritos Sheriff's Capt. Joe Gonzales were also present. 

After about five minutes, the gate re-opened and deputies escorted 55-year-old Nakoula Basseley Nakoula toward the unmarked sheriff's vehicle.

Nakoula's video has been blamed for sparking protests in Libya on Sept. 11 that resulted in the deaths of four Americans including Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods of Imperial Beach and Glen A. Doherty of Encinitas.

The Man In Hiding: What Does Nakoula Look Like?

The embattled filmmaker, a Coptic Christian, was wearing a long gray wool coat, a khaki-toned tweed derby hat and a white towel wrapped around most of his face, allowing only his dark-rimmed eyeglasses to peek through. A news reporter threw out questions to Nakoula as he made his way to the vehicle, but he did not respond nor speak. The filmmaker kept his head down in an attempt to better conceal his identity from the glare of the cameras.

Once the Cerritos resident was inside the sheriff's vehicle, they sped off and made their way to the Cerritos Sheriff's Station (located about a mile away), where Nakoula was interviewed by federal probation officers, Whitmore said. 

Almost two hours later, Whitmore and a handful of the SAO team returned to the cul-de-sac, where the spokesman addressed the few lingering members of the media. 

"We came assisting federal probation officers to take Mr. Nakoula on a voluntary interview for federal probation," Whitmore said. "They took him to the local sheriff's station (Cerritos) where he was interviewed, he has now since left the area. He's no longer here and that's pretty much the long and short of it."

Whitmore said Nakoula left the area on his own and would not be returning to his Cerritos home.

The spokesman further emphasized that Nakoula was "never handcuffed, he was never arrested, never detained, never in custody -- it was all voluntary," adding that he chose to cover his face, "that's what he wanted and he had every right to do it."

His family remains inside their Cerritos residence, Whitmore added. The family, which neighbors say have lived their for about 10 years, consists of his wife, his college-aged son and daughter and a son who is in middle school.

His lawyer—Steve Seiden, who consulted with Nakoula inside his home Friday afternoon—was not with him at the Cerritos Station, according to Whitmore.

A Look at Nakoula's Past

Nakoula was accused of opening bank and credit card accounts using phony Social Security numbers in 2010. He pleaded no contest to the bank fraud charges in Los Angeles federal court, papers show.

He was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Christine A. Snyder to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without prior authorization. He was also ordered to pay about $790,000 in restitution.

On Friday, Karen Redmond, a spokeswoman for the administrative office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C., said the federal probation department in Los Angeles is "reviewing" Nakoula's activities to determine if he violated the terms of his probation. If so, he could be sent back to prison.

The Film Fueling the Recent Violence in the Middle East

On Wednesday, Nakoula was identified as one of the makers of the 14-minute YouTube film "Innocence of Muslims," which portrays the Muslim Prophet Muhammad engaged in apparently crude behavior. Such depictions of the prophet are considered blasphemous by many Muslims.

He told The Associated Press he was a manager of the company that produced the film, but denied being the director, who was previously identified as Sam Bacile. Federal officials, however, believe Nakoula was the man responsible for the controversial video. 

Protests apparently ignited by the low-budget film played a role in mob violence in Libya in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

- City News Service contributed to a portion of this report.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Mike G September 17, 2012 at 08:23 pm
So if I get this right, if I offend your religion you are encouraged to burn down my home and kill me? I swear Muslims make Hillbilly's look sophisticated.
david child October 3, 2012 at 03:31 am
F U Mike G. Get a clue.
cindyella November 24, 2012 at 05:09 am
http://www.louisvuittonoffer.com Louis Vuitton Official Website
http://www.monclerjacketsoutletvip.co.uk Moncler Outlet http://www.freywillesale.co.uk Frey Wille Outlet Factory
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.