A Mongols Retraction

June 12, 2009

All Posts, News

An attorney close to the Mongols case has written this page to complain:

It is completely boneheaded of you to state that Mr. Nieves, “Listo”, has agreed to testify for the government in this case. That statement is false. I request you do the following: 1) Learn to read. 2) Actually read the documents you talk about. 3) Publish a retraction of that statement.

Earlier this week, The Aging Rebel stated: “Public documents filed Sunday also reveal that Juan Manuel “Listo” Nieves and William “Dago Bull” Shawley have pled guilty to racketeering and agreed to testify that the Mongols motorcycle Club is a criminal conspiracy.”

Our Error

That statement is erroneous and The Aging Rebel retracts it. Saying that Nieves and Shawley had “agreed to testify that the Mongols Motorcycle Club is a criminal conspiracy” simply because they had already stated in writing that the Mongols Motorcycle Club is a criminal conspiracy is an inexcusably sloppy conclusion to draw. A confession may be evidence but it should not be construed to be de facto testimony.

This page should have stated that Nieves and Shawley have pled guilty to racketeering and being part of a criminal conspiracy called the Mongols. Standard language in all unsealed plea agreements so far stipulates that the plea agreements may be abrogated if the defendant is not honest at all times with the court. It does not necessarily follow that being honest at all times with the court means that any defendant will be subpoenaed and compelled to testify by the court about a confession he has already given.

The Aging Rebel sincerely regrets this error and any embarrassment that it has caused Nieves or Shawley. The furious tone of the attorney’s complaint indicates that neither Nieves nor Shawley intends to testify about anything, anywhere, anytime.

More You Should Read

A more complete and truthful story would also have included this statement from a public document filed on June 1st:

“In fact, in four instances, the pleas of defendants Newman, Shawley, Nieves, and Loza, the government filed ex parte applications to seal, had the court order their plea agreements sealed, and change of plea hearings closed and then these defendants plead guilty at open hearings, admitting racketeering and criminal enterprise activities, with the knowledge that their plea agreements would be unsealed and available to the public and that the minutes of their change of plea hearings would similarly be available to the public. More importantly, Mr. Ciccone provided no allegations that any of these defendants had previously been threatened or have been threatened since they plead guilty and admitted in open court that the Mongols Motorcycle club was a criminal enterprise.”

For those who are even less literate and more boneheaded than Rebel, it should be made clear that defendants, including Nieves, who have reached plea and sentencing agreements wish to have those agreements made public. The plea deals remain sealed, at least in part, because statements made by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Special Agent John Ciccone exaggerate and dramatize the danger that unsealing those agreements would pose to defendants like Nieves.

Specifically, to reiterate, Nieves has nothing to hide, is not in danger and he does not intend to testify about anything including his confession.

Stay In Touch

And one trusts, if this retraction contains any errors which need to be retracted or draws any inaccurate conclusions a furious attorney will quickly point them out. And, that furious attorney can be assured that his complaints will be immediately addressed on this page in the most cheerful and cooperative manner.

Veritas Simplex Oratio Est

, , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “A Mongols Retraction”

  1. Bear Says:

    Rebel, I’m proud of you for manning up and admitting your errors, that retraction certainly cleared things up for me. If I ever find myself in need of legal representation I certainly hope I’ll be able to retain someone of Mr. Neives’s attorneys caliber!

  2. JAMES Says:

    I don’t see what the big deal is made about here,the fact is these guys are claiming the MONGOLS M.C. is a criminal org., meaning that the whole CLUB is involved, when in fact they don’t know what the WHOLE CLUB is doing just because they got involved with a select few and got caught and now the FEDS. are trying to shut down the MONGOLS M.C. they are going into court and answering all questions truthfully, they have already purgered themselves with that statement.

  3. leonard goveia Says:

    Rebel need s to be very clear on facts or better yet avoid snitch jackets,,,people die or their lives are drastically changed from rumors and inuendo..
    Your lucky your not looking at a lawsuit

  4. Rebel Says:

    Dear Bear,

    The party who complained is not affiliated in any way with the case. I think he is a para-legal in Dhubai. I am not actually sure. It is some place with no extradiction to the US.

    your pal,

  5. Rebel Says:

    Dear Leonard,

    I do not hand out snitch jackets. The federales do. As to whether Nieves can be compelled to testify or not about what he has already stated for the record is a pretty small point. But if I squint hard enough I can see it. That is the reason I conceded it.

    I thought it was likely that at some point Nieves might be called to a stand and asked:

    “Mr. Nieves, did you state that you were a member, and I quote…

    ‘of an organization engaged in, among other things, murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to traffic in narcotics, narcotics-trafficking, robbery, extortion, money laundering, and witness intimidation. At all relevant times, this organization, known as the “Mongols” Biker gang….’

    But I have been told this will never happen. Okay. I was wrong. I printed the retraction. Having made this admission, Mr. Nieves need never speak of it again. Cool. That genuinely makes me happy. I am pulling for him. I am pulling for the guys who haven’t said a word to anybody yet, too. Just so you know. I think they have lives to get back to as well.

    Also, for your information, there are three vital points concerning libel. First, is the statement “provably true.” Two, was the writer saying something he thought to be true when he said it. Three, if the writer learns that he has inadvertently not told the truth, how quickly does he move to correct his error.

    I will tell you this, the AP, the Los Angeles Times or the Arizona Republic would have just said “fuck it.” Of course, they never had the story in the first place.

    your pal,

  6. Bear Says:

    Dhubai!!! That’s good! Made me laugh :) That two day rode trip must have put your head back in a better place. On another note: roughly how many times a year do you hear “Your lucky your not looking at a lawsuit” or something simular? Glad you’re back and I hope the ride was good enough to warrent a write up… the only time I get to ride through the brown hills of California any more is when I read your “Rebel Ride” posts. Stay cool.

Leave a Reply