The following quotes are from the April 20th Notice of Action confirming the denial of mandatory parole for Dr. Shakur. Below he responds:
“You have violated the rules of the institution on 5 occasions:
– Use of drugs on June 11, 1990”
Although the 100-series “use of drugs” infraction is 27 years old, we acknowledge its serious nature. I have continually contested it as being a false-positive; there exists no other indication of the “use of drugs,” either before or after, during my 32 years of incarceration while being subjected to regular urine analysis. Further, I have repeatedly requested alternative means of testing and was denied; the corporation, “Pharm Chemical” responsible for urine sample analysis has since been dissolved based on high incidence of false positives.
“- Abuse of telephone privileges on April 24, 2001 and on May 9, 2007. You were found guilty of contacting the public without authorization on May 9, 2007 and again on February 6, 2013, which involved you making a call to give a speech that was broadcast to a group of more than 200 people attending a symposium.”
The most recent telephone infraction was the result of a U.C. Northridge symposium, where I addressed students on the theory of T.R.C. The above infractions that the commission relies on have previously been reviewed by the B.O.P. None of these infractions indicate violent behavior or criminal conduct.
“Additionally, you take no responsibility for the crimes for which you were convicted. Information on your website, including your writings and in a recent letter you wrote to your supporters in 2014 indicates you routinely refer to yourself as a freedom fighter, a political prisoner, and the “victim” of government’s counter-intelligence program.”
The origins of the Commission’s references are ambiguous and we are not sure of what specific “written statements” they refer to. None of their references represent a threat to society or the government, or to indicate potential to re-offend; and they are insignificant as a factor of my rehabilitation. However, they are in fact evidence of the exercise of my constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.
“Further you end most of your writings with the salutation ‘Stiff Resistance’, a phrase which is also prominent on your webpage. The commission not only finds these statements incompatible with the goals and conditions of parole supervision, but also concludes they are evidence that you have not disavowed yourself from the same set of beliefs you had when you were convicted for your role as leader in a Racketeering Conspiracy.”
The RICO Racketeering conspiracy may have been politically motivated, but my beliefs were not criminal. I was indicted and convicted of specific criminal acts; for which I have been held accountable and still harbor a great deal of remorse over. As well, the Commission designated my case as “original Jurisdiction” based on the political interest and the Government’s assertion that the acts for which I was convicted were politically motivated. The Commission does not rely on any evidence of criminal conduct or propagation within their denial.
See also “The Stigma of Stiff Resistance”