After serving three decades in a federal penitentiary, freedom fighter and father figure to the late Hip Hop icon Tupac Shakur says that the government is illegally keeping him behind bars.
Mutulu Shakur has filed a lawsuit against the government of the United States earlier this week, claiming his Constitutional First Amendment rights are being used against him, to prevent his release.
“Plaintiff has led a highly productive and exemplary life in prison, influencing his stepson Tupac Shakur’s career as a worldwide renowned hip hop artist with messages of non-violence that reached millions of young people,”
Dr. Mutula stated in his federal lawsuit.
“As established by letters in the record and Plaintiff’s statement at several parole hearings, throughout his incarceration Plaintiff has been outspoken against gang violence and crime. He has consistently expressed support for peaceful and constructive changes in all matters involving racial disparities and social justice. He has never in 30 years of incarceration supported or in any way implied support for criminal conduct or violence to achieve social justice,” the lawsuit says.
Mutulu Shakur, who is affectionately still known as “The Doc” for his miraculous, naturopathic remedies for heroin addicts, was sentenced to 60 years in prison in 1987 after being convicted of robbing a Brinks truck of almost $2 million and killing three security guards from the company. He was also convicted for aiding and abetting the escape of Assata Shakur from a New Jersey State Prison after she was sentenced to life for the murder of a NJ State Trooper in 1973. Assata is currently in political asylum in Cuba, where she has been for at least three decades.
Shakur went up for a parole hearing two years ago, but was denied because of a single positive drug test that he failed almost thirty years prior to the parole hearing.
According to the latest court filing Mutulu, who was once a target of the FBI/CIA’s infamous Cointelpro, says his First Amendment rights are being ignored.
“The commission has failed to adopt or apply any known standards on the meaning of frequent rule violations. A handful of old telephone rule violations over 30 years do not show Plaintiff frequently violated prison rules or is likely to re-offend If released on parole,” said the lawsuit