Tupac's Personal COINTELPRO

[JCM]

What are your skeptical views on COINTELPRO involvement in the life and death of Tupac Shakur? His FBI file was over 4,000 pages and is non-FOIAable in total due to national security reasons.

 

[theprestige]

What are your skeptical views on COINTELPRO involvement in the life and death of Tupac Shakur? His FBI file was over 4,000 pages and is non-FOIAable in total due to national security reasons.

My skeptical views? Let's see: You've made a bunch of claims without any supporting evidence, therefore... there was probably no COINTELPRO involvement in the life and death of Tupac Shakur... the size of his FBI file is unknown and irrelevant, and there may not even be such a file... and there is no indication that any FOIA request has ever been made for this file, nor any reason why such a request would be denied (assuming such a request were ever made, and assuming such a file even existed).

But that's just me being skeptical. Would you like to try your OP again, this time with evidence to support your claims?

 

[JCM]

My skeptical views? Let's see: You've made a bunch of claims without any supporting evidence, therefore... there was probably no COINTELPRO involvement in the life and death of Tupac Shakur... the size of his FBI file is unknown and irrelevant, and there may not even be such a file... and there is no indication that any FOIA request has ever been made for this file, nor any reason why such a request would be denied (assuming such a request were ever made, and assuming such a file even existed).

But that's just me being skeptical. Would you like to try your OP again, this time with evidence to support your claims?

There is plenty of evidence for those knowledgeable of the facts. John Potash has had a FOIA denial. I'll gather the evidence you request but those already knowledgeable please comment. One of Mr. Shakur's bodyguards was a F.B.I. agent, Kevin Hackie, who left after not being given a promotion.

 

[JCM]

the size of his FBI file is unknown and irrelevant, and there may not even be such a file... and there is no indication that any FOIA request has ever been made for this file, nor any reason why such a request would be denied (assuming such a request were ever made, and assuming such a file even existed).

Direct Link

 

[carlitos]

What are your skeptical views on COINTELPRO involvement in the life and death of Tupac Shakur? His FBI file was over 4,000 pages and is non-FOIAable in total due to national security reasons.

Direct Link

Could you please explain how his FBI file is "non-FOIAable" and yet you provided a direct link to a PDF of Mr. Shakur's FBI file with a bunch of "FOIA" stamps on the file? Thanks.

 

[JCM]

the size of his FBI file is unknown and irrelevant, and there may not even be such a file... and there is no indication that any FOIA request has ever been made for this file, nor any reason why such a request would be denied (assuming such a request were ever made, and assuming such a file even existed).

Attached is Potash's receipt to copy the 4,000+ pages that were denied later for the reason stated

Below are exerpts of John Potash's documentary about his book

 

[JCM]

Could you please explain how his FBI file is "non-FOIAable" and yet you provided a direct link to a PDF? Thanks.

I stated non-FOIAable in total meaning it is not releasable in full and only portions have been released. The link is to just one portion of files which also does have redeacted portions (anyone care to offer explaination for specific redactions?) and doesn't justify the $400+ copy charges which were asked for and paid before the denial of full release of all of Mr. Shakur's files. The Potash receipt shows payment for the non-FOIAable documents which were deemed non-FOIAable after first receiveing copy payment due to national security concerns the only FOIA exemption. Trying to track down hard pdfs of denial of the requests if they exist. They are in Potash's book I think. Potash recieved 99 pages of the over 4000. I am not sure what amount of those 99 are included in the direct link which is 102 pages

 

[carlitos]

I stated non-FOIAable in total meaning it is not releasable in full and only portions have been released. The link is to just one portion of files which also does have redeacted portions (anyone care to offer explaination for specific redactions?) and doesn't justify the $400+ copy charges which were asked for and paid before the denial of full release of all of Mr. Shakur's files. The Potash receipt shows payment for the non-FOIAable documents which were deemed non-FOIAable after first receiveing copy payment due to national security concerns the only FOIA exemption. Trying to track down hard pdfs of denial of the requests if they exist. They are in Potash's book I think. Potash recieved 99 pages of the over 4000. I am not sure what amount of those 99 are included in the direct link which is 102 pages

Thanks. I don't at all understand your point, but thanks.

 

[JCM]

Thanks. I don't at all understand your point, but thanks.

Sorry, I am beginning to question myself as well

To clarify what I meant by stating that portions of Tupac Shakur's F.B.I. files are non-FOIAable, John Potash made a FOIA request for all Tupac Shakur files, was told it would cost $405 to make copies of said files (about 4000+ pages cost around $405) which Potash paid and was issued receipt for and was then denied access to the referenced $405 worth of pages due to them being nonreleaseable due to national security concerns, thus that is why portions are non-FOIAable and why there is proof to believe said files exist. He was issued only 99 pages of what he paid for and it is not known of what percent those 99 he was given are of the 102 referenced in that direct link. I also mentioned in those 102 pages in the direct link there are redactions which need explainations as to what is the motavation for specific redactions. I have yet to find definitive proof of the original post's topic and welcome any more evidence or disproval.

Funny enough even though I brought this topic up, I do sense a small hole being dug and am having doubts about some of Potash's narrative

 

[Minadin]

When Tupac and Biggie came over to my house last weekend for ribs, they said this was part of the cover-up, like they planned from the beginning.

They were going on and on about it, when Elvis pulled up on a pink unicorn (with a Cadillac logo!) and I had to go.

 

[Horatius]

(anyone care to offer explaination for specific redactions?)

I read through the first part of that file you linked yesterday, and most of the redactions I saw were obviously people's names and identifying information. That's the sort of information that they'd be legally barred from including in a FOIA release, particularly if the people mentioned were being accused of crimes for which they were never charged, or for which they were exonerated.

As for the "National Security" aspect, the pages linked also discussed an alleged criminal conspiracy perpetrated by the Jewish Defence League, in which they were supposedly extorting money from various people, somehow. There was at least one reference to an ongoing "domestic terrorism" investigation related to this. So I suspect a lot of documents relating to that would have been held back, as they might contain information on the FBI and police investigations that would be detrimental to national security if released.

 

[carlitos]

Sorry, I am beginning to question myself as well

To clarify what I meant by stating that portions of Tupac Shakur's F.B.I. files are non-FOIAable, John Potash made a FOIA request for all Tupac Shakur files, was told it would cost $405 to make copies of said files (about 4000+ pages cost around $405) which Potash paid and was issued receipt for and was then denied access to the referenced $405 worth of pages due to them being nonreleaseable due to national security concerns, thus that is why portions are non-FOIAable and why there is proof to believe said files exist. He was issued only 99 pages of what he paid for and it is not known of what percent those 99 he was given are of the 102 referenced in that direct link. I also mentioned in those 102 pages in the direct link there are redactions which need explainations as to what is the motavation for specific redactions. I have yet to find definitive proof of the original post's topic and welcome any more evidence or disproval.

Funny enough even though I brought this topic up, I do sense a small hole being dug and am having doubts about some of Potash's narrative

The file linked is called "shakur_t_part01.PDF." Have you considered that it's just one part of the file? Have you considered that the author of a book on an alleged secret government conspiracy has good reasons to create suspicion in order to sell his book?

 

[The Big Dog]

I stated non-FOIAable in total meaning it is not releasable in full and only portions have been released. The link is to just one portion of files which also does have redeacted portions (anyone care to offer explaination for specific redactions?) and doesn't justify the $400+ copy charges which were asked for and paid before the denial of full release of all of Mr. Shakur's files. The Potash receipt shows payment for the non-FOIAable documents which were deemed non-FOIAable after first receiveing copy payment due to national security concerns the only FOIA exemption. Trying to track down hard pdfs of denial of the requests if they exist. They are in Potash's book I think. Potash recieved 99 pages of the over 4000. I am not sure what amount of those 99 are included in the direct link which is 102 pages

The thumbnail you attached above is not a receipt, it is part of a letter acknowledging the requestor's willingness to pay up to that amount in fee, which procedure is set out in the FBI FOIA handbook. Where is the rest of it?

Second, any claim that the ONLY reason the documents were redacted is National Security is laughable. Here are the basis that the FBI can with hold documents:

The FOIA's nine exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering: (1) classified national defense and foreign relations information; (2) internal agency rules and practices; (3) information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law; (4) trade secrets and other confidential commercial or financial information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges; (6) information involving matters of personal privacy; (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (8) information relating to the supervision of financial institutions; and (9) geological information on wells.

Look on the right hand side of the complete file you linked, you'll see numerous references to "b2, b7d" etc next to redactions. Those are statutory cites that correspond to the exemptions set forth above. No surprise, the VAST majority relate to an ongoing FBI criminal investigation.

The author seems like a con man, or a dummy.

 

[carlitos]

The thumbnail you attached above is not a receipt, it is part of a letter acknowledging the requestor's willingness to pay up to that amount in fee, which procedure is set out in the FBI FOIA handbook. Where is the rest of it?

Thanks for clearing that up.

The author seems like a con man, or a dummy.

False dilemma.

 

[JCM]

The thumbnail you attached above is not a receipt, it is part of a letter acknowledging the requestor's willingness to pay up to that amount in fee, which procedure is set out in the FBI FOIA handbook. Where is the rest of it?

I don't know where the rest of the letter is. You are correct it is a willingness to pay for $405 of Tupac Shakur files, not reciept of payment for $405 of Tupac Shakur files. None the less $405 worth of pages were identified as to related to the inquiry and the letter serves as to the bone fides of the existence of $405 of Tupac Shakur files. Is that correct?

Second, any claim that the ONLY reason the documents were redacted is National Security is laughable. Here are the basis that the FBI can with hold documents:

The FOIA's nine exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering: (1) classified national defense and foreign relations information; (2) internal agency rules and practices; (3) information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law; (4) trade secrets and other confidential commercial or financial information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges; (6) information involving matters of personal privacy; (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of and/or information provided by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (8) information relating to the supervision of financial institutions; and (9) geological information on wells.

Look on the right hand side of the complete file you linked, you'll see numerous references to "b2, b7d" etc next to redactions. Those are statutory cites that correspond to the exemptions set forth above. No surprise, the VAST majority relate to an ongoing FBI criminal investigation.

That's correct, I stand corrected. The only proof I've found so far as to the reason some pages were denied to Mr. Potash due to exemption 1 were his own word. And such exemptions are reasonably explained by Horatius.

 

[JCM]

Have you considered that the author of a book on an alleged secret government conspiracy has good reasons to create suspicion in order to sell his book?

I can see how he might do that and I'd like to narrow suspicion to verifiable claims.

The file linked is called "shakur_t_part01.PDF." Have you considered that it's just one part of the file?

Yes the part01 is their own labeling. Can you or anyone find a part02 or other releases close to being worth the rest of the $405 worth of files?

 

[carlitos]

The only evidence that I have seen for "$405 worth of files" is a jpeg directly uploaded (and apparently renamed) by you here on the JREF. I can think of a dozen more likely reasons why he might have received and / or posted to share less pages, and "FBI cover-up" is none of them.

 

[sadhatter]

What are your skeptical views on COINTELPRO involvement in the life and death of Tupac Shakur? His FBI file was over 4,000 pages and is non-FOIAable in total due to national security reasons.

I'd say " Tupac : Breaking the oath" was just about the biggest piece of **** i have seen, and i make it my business to watch ever piece of **** out there, documentary or fiction.

Tupac Ct's seem to be based around the fact that someone who just got baked before an interview looks paranoid. And that paranoia is taken as evidence of sketchy things. Sorry to break this news to the CT'ers , but rappers tend to get baked a lot. It is not weird, it is not interesting, it is someone who smoked a J.

The guy had sketchy friends, he was a thug turned artist ( versus, artists claiming to be thugs.) , and attacked by folks who know what they are doing. The fact they wern't caught is no more amazing for Pac , than any other random unsolved murder of a gang member.

My favorite bit is when people ascribe superpowers to his bodyguards, " Why didn't the manage to take out the guys who shot him?" because a full on gun battle in the middle of a city is a bit beyond their friggen pay grade, especially when the guy is mortally wounded and the people are leaving. They are bodyguards, not soldiers.

 

[JCM]

You are all correct. I think this was a hole I dug myself into too deep and is bs. Sorry to be so gullible. None of it is credible

 

[The Big Dog]

You are all correct. I think this was a hole I dug myself into too deep and is bs. Sorry to be so gullible. None of it is credible

Don't be so hard on yourself. This thread is a text book example of good quality skepticism.

If all threads were like this, and all posters were like you, we'd have shut down the forum years ago!