Brett Bursey and Becci Robins/The State, August 19, 2001

The Strange Case of Brett Bursey and The State By Will Moredock

Brett Bursey /The State, September29, 1988

Nearly three years ago, I created this webpage to notify the public to the ongoing coverup by The State newspaper of Brett Bursey’s fraudulent business practices and thuggish political behavior. Since that time a number of people have contacted me to express their appreciation, yet The State has steadfastly refused to report anything unflattering about this fossil from the 1960s, even as it has continued to report on Bursey’s various political stunts. 
            When this webpage went up in April 2005, Bursey had more than 130 stories in The State electronic archive. Since that time, he has gained eight more notices, including recent coverage of his ongoing legal battle over a 2003 conviction for disrupting a George W. Bush visit at Columbia Metropolitan Airport.
            Other developments since April 2005 are that Knight Ridder Corporation, which owned The State, was dissolved by its shareholders in March 2006 and the paper was sold to the McClatchy Company,  which now bears responsibility for The State’s professional malfeasance.
            On March 16, 2006, Columbia City Paper did what The State has never had the courage or integrity to do – tell the truth about Brett Bursey. The story, by Paul Blake, included heretofore unknown details about Bursey’s double life, including the fact that he is actually three years older than he has represented himself to be to colleagues and media for 40 years. He was born in December 1945.
            More recently, Bursey announced a major fundraising effort through his new organization, the S.C. Progressive Network. In light of his long history of financial chicanery, it seems fair to ask who will be counting the money and keeping the books on this fresh infusion of cash. The State has no curiosity and the members of Bursey’s organization have been kept in the dark as to his methods and practices.
            S.C. Progressive Network is made up of an several dozen organizations, including labor unions, local chapters of the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Planned Parenthood and others. Do these organizations know what kind of person they are involved with? Do their national organizations know? Again, The State feels no responsibility to inform them. That responsibility falls to this website and any bloggers who are willing to post it.

April 18, 2005

For 35 years The State newspaper has had a bizarre and unhealthy relationship with local activist Brett Bursey. The State's coverage of the life and times of Brett Bursey started with his demonstrations against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. Since that time, The State has followed Bursey through a number of demonstrations at nuclear facilities around the state; through an ill-fated run for the General Assembly; through his lawsuit against Gov. Carroll Campbell; culminating this past year with exhaustive coverage of his trial and conviction for demonstrating against President George W. Bush at Columbia Metropolitan Airport. Most recently, Bursey has established himself as an authority on electronic voting machines and The State has quoted him frequently and uncritically. One of his columns ran on The State’s Op-ed page in July 2004. Other coverage includes a four-part, 23,000-word series featuring the life and early career of Bursey by State writer Claudia Smith Brinson, which ran on September 1988.

A search of “Brett Bursey” in The State’s electronic archive reveals more than130 hits since 1987, the year the archive was created. Such a reliable and quotable source is Bursey that State reporters have sought his opinions of matters as disparate as U.S. policy toward Cuba and art hanging on the walls of the Statehouse.

In short, The State has granted enormous stature to this marginally literate college dropout who has never held a job that was not created or arranged by his mother. And the editors and reporters of The State have done this with full knowledge that Bursey has been involved in a number of fraudulent business activities, including a fake bankruptcy; fraudulent solicitation of funds; cheating his employees on their salaries and benefits and attempted evasion of state environmental and tax laws. They have also done this with full knowledge that Bursey runs a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. And they have done it with full knowledge that Brett Bursey has had his chief critic jailed on one occasion and fined $1,500 on another for distributing this information to interested parties.

Defenders of The State’s editorial decisions might point out that Bursey has never been charged with any these financial or other improprieties and, hence, has not risen to the level of an inquiry. That is a weak argument at best. No self-respecting journalist would ever claim that he or she has no responsibility to report misdeeds until they are made official by police and prosecutors. Surely a public figure of Brett Bursey’s long standing and high profile would be worthy of a serious investigation by The State, especially since reporters and editors have had documentary evidence of his financial misconduct for over a decade.

But this appears to be more than a case of bad judgment on the part of TheState. One might be forced to conclude that The State’s favored coverage of Brett Bursey is a matter of politics and political correctness. An index of The State’s fairness can be found in going to the electronic archive and pulling up the story on local Ku Klux Klan leader Horace King, which ran July 10, 1996. The 2,816-word profile by Doug Pardue reveals no criminal activity on King’s part, but merely reports his association with sleazy and violent people. The most damning piece of information that Pardue could find on King – and one suspects he reported it to humiliate his subject as much as to inform the public – is that King is illiterate.

If The State could expend so much time and ink on Horace King, why can’t its writers and editors put a comparable effort into reporting on the financial and personal behavior of a far more prominent political activist, especially when they already possess the documentation of his misdeeds?

Managing Editor Tonnya Kennedy is only the latest in a long line of State writers and editors who has steadfastly refused to discuss the Brett Bursey story or their reasons for not running it.

________________________________________

I made my first overture to The State on December 7, 1993, when I mailed to investigative reporter Doug Pardue a hefty file containing documents relating to Bursey’s fraudulent business practices and a list of names and addresses of people he might contact to confirm my charges. After weeks of waiting, it became obvious that Pardue was not contacting any of the sources in my file or otherwise pursuing the story.

I next sent the packet of information to Dawn Hinshaw, Brett Bursey’s oldest and closest contact at The State. I accompanied it with a cover letter, dated April 11, 1994, explaining why I thought The State should take a hard look at Bursey and asking her to call me to discuss the material. When she had not called in several weeks, I left a series of messages on her voice mail at the state, asking her to call me to discuss the Brett Bursey material, or to at least acknowledge receiving it. Again, no response from Dawn Hinshaw.

Finally, after numerous attempts, I succeeded in reaching Hinshaw by phone at her desk. I asked if she had received the Bursey material. She said she had. I asked what she thought of it. She said she thought it had no journalistic value and was not interested in pursuing it. She declined to elaborate.

I next called Managing Editor Paula Lynn Ellis, and said I had some material on a prominent political figure and would like to discuss it with her. She was most pleasant and agreeable and gave me an appointment to come to her office with my material and discuss the matter on May 12, 1994.

In that meeting, I presented my documentation and argued that Brett Bursey was worthy of a full investigation by The State. Ellis was noncommittal in that meeting, but I did get her pledge that she would contact me after reviewing the material and let me know what she intended to do with it.

When I had not heard from her in two months, I wrote Ellis a letter on July 19, reminding her of our meeting and asking her to get in touch to let me know what she intended to do about the Brett Bursey material. After more months without response, I wrote another letter, asking Ellis to give me an answer on the Bursey material. Again, only silence from Managing Editor Paula Lynn Ellis.

On February 7, 1995, I sent a third letter to Ellis, reviewing the whole matter, including her failure to communicate about Brett Bursey. I wrote: “Ms. Ellis, that you have refused to develop the Brett Bursey story, when it has been fully investigated and laid at your doorstep can only be termed a serious lack of news judgment. That you would refuse to even communicate about the Brett Bursey material is much worse. It shows, I think, a serious lack of personal and professional courtesy. It is symptomatic of the arrogance that has made The State so distrusted and disliked throughout South Carolina.”

I sent copies of this letter to the executive editor and publisher of The State and to the vice president for news at Knight-Ridder, the parent company of The State.

On March 6, 1995, Paula Ellis sent her evasive and disingenuous four-sentence response, concluding that she did not consider the Brett Bursey material to be of news value. “I don’t see what the public’s interest would be…” she wrote.

Yet, the public’s interest in Brett Bursey was apparently quite high, because The State continued to report on Bursey’s political and legal activities with more than 45 stories over the next decade.

My next step was to print The Brett Bursey Fact Sheet, which I distributed and circulated by a number of means, including inserting them in Bursey’s newspapers, which he distributed free on the streets of Columbia. In it, I outlined the evidence I had compiled against Bursey. This included:

• Brett Bursey had faked a bankruptcy. He had told a number of people, including at least one state official, that his print shop, Harbinger Publications, Inc., went into bankruptcy in December 1991. In fact, there is no record in Federal Bankruptcy Court of a filing for Harbinger Publications.
• During 1991 and 1992, Brett Bursey solicited money for a “Point Foundation,” which he claimed to operate. In fact, there has never been a Point Foundation; when the S.C. Secretary of State’s Office learned of the solicitations, it ordered him to desist.
• Brett Bursey ran a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization called the Natural Guard Fund, which was registered with the S.C. Secretary of State’s Office. For a number of years he appointed a “dummy” board for this organization: In 1993, the treasurer of the board of the NGF was a convicted drug distributor; in 1994, the board was composed of only four people and two of those were Bursey’s employees/tenants.
• Bursey maintained neither his personal vehicles, nor his Lexington County real estate in his own name. His Saluda River-front property was recorded in the name of his mother, a resident of Georgia. Likewise, his Peugeot station wagon bore a Georgia license plate and was registered to his mother and his Jeep was registered to another Georgia resident, meaning that Bursey paid no taxes on these vehicles in South Carolina.
• Brett Bursey, the famous environmental crusader, made repeated applications for a permit to build a house on the floodway of his Saluda River property, at 375 Silverwood Lane. The Lexington County planning commission, responsible for protecting the riverfront environment, repeatedly refused him. Bursey enlisted the help of an engineer to argue his case.
• Brett Bursey kept one of his employees living on his Saluda River property for many months in a small camper with an outhouse.
• Brett Bursey did not offer his employees Social Security, Worker’s Compensation or insurance.
• Brett Bursey cheated a number of his employees on their wages. At least one of them had to threaten legal action before she was paid.

As a professional journalist and observer of human nature, I thought The Brett Bursey Fact Sheet offered a compelling portrait of a man who claimed to be a professional activist for workers’ rights, environmental protection and corporate responsibility. I immediately fired off copies to Dawn Hinshaw and other reporters at The State, but heard nothing.

Someone was paying attention, though. In the fall of 1994, I was hit with the first of a series of court orders to cease and desist distributing The Brett Bursey Fact Sheet to Bursey’s acquaintances and associates – the very people who most needed to see it. Between January 1995 and August 1997, Bursey hauled me into court five times for distributing the Fact Sheet. I was jailed once and ordered to serve 80 hours community service. On a second occasion, I was fined $1,500. (It is worth noting that Bursey was fined only $500 when he was found guilty of trespassing at the airport during George W. Bush’s visit – and a wealthy benefactor picked up the tab for that moment of heroics.)

On three of my court appearances, Bursey was accompanied by attorney Tom Turnipseed as an adviser, but not as attorney of record. Turnipseed is an old celebrity activist and hero of The State. Since 1987, his name has appeared in more than 200 stories (the maximum number the archive will show). At each of his appearances against me, Bursey was accompanied by his mistress Becci Robbins, another favorite of The State. Her name appears 18 times on its pages. Activist Pete Tepley appeared on Bursey’s behalf in one court appearance. His name appears in 15 State stories. And attorney Bill Nettles represented Bursey in his final appearance against me, the appearance that cost me $1,500 for exercising my First Amendment rights. Nettles is a local celebrity mouthpiece whose name appears 93 times in The State.

With all this celebrity power lined up against me, I was confident that The State would dispatch a scribe to the courthouse to see the fireworks. Before all of my court appearances, I notified State reporters Dawn Hinshaw, Lisa Greene, John Allard, Doug Pardue and the managing editor du jour. Surely there was something here of public interest or human interest that the readers of The State might find edifying. Apparently the reporters and editors of The State thought not. No State reporter ever came near a courtroom where Bursey appeared against me.

On April 9, 1996, I wrote a letter to Managing Editor Joe Oglesby, laying out the case against Brett Bursey. I received no response.

In a June 7, 1996, letter I notified Oglesby of my June 14 court date with Bursey and told him it might be of news value. He responded with a three-sentence letter saying, “I do not share your perspective.” He did not explain what his perspective was.

On June 11, 1997, I sent another letter to Oglesby, with the latest news of Bursey’s legal harassments and court orders. In it I wrote, “You and your staff consider yourselves the watchdog of public affairs in South Carolina, but who is the watchdog of The State? Who holds this arrogant and powerful newspaper responsible when it refuses to do its job?” Of course, I got no response.

Only Warner Montgomery of The Star-Reporter displayed the courage and integrity to give this matter any coverage on his pages.

During the years that these court battles were going on, The State continued to cover and promote Bursey’s activities outside the courtroom. For instance, on April 13, 1996, Carol Click wrote a completely uncritical story about one of Brett Bursey’s upcoming political rallies, including instructions on how to get to the Lowcountry event.

On November 17, 1997, I wrote to TheState’s new managing editor, Carol Hanner, to bring her up to speed on the Bursey story. No response.

On August 19, 2001, Dawn Hinshaw wrote an utterly credulous story about Brett Bursey and the closing of his newspaper, Point. She quoted Bursey saying he had a circulation of 25,000! I considered the claim preposterous and Hinshaw should have, too. I wrote a letter saying that this looked like another Brett Bursey fraud against his advertisers and reminded that Bursey held a 501(c)(3) tax status. I sent copies of the letter to the new managing editor, John Drescher, as well as to Hinshaw, Lee Bandy, Aaron Sheinin and Joseph Stroud. I never heard from any of these fearless scribes.

(Bursey knows there is no loss or liability in lying to a State reporter, but he is also smart enough to grasp that there could be serious repercussions in lying to an industry auditing journal. Presumably, for that reason he included no information on circulation in his report to the Gale Directory Directory of Publications and Broadcast Meida/135 th Edition.

(In another example of asleep-at-the-wheel journalism, Claudia Smith Brinson reported Bursey’s claim that he edited a small weekly newspaper in Georgia. In fact, one of his former colleagues there told me that Bursey was at the paper only a few months and was never an editor.)

On November 8, 2003, I sent a letter to Managing Editor John Drescher. In it I wrote: “Now, with Bursey on trial in federal court, is the perfect time – journalistically, that is – to do the big retrospective story. But you have to make a decision, John. You have to decide whether you are in the journalism business or the myth-making business. I hope that you will decide in favor of journalism, because a lot of people count on you to do that.”

At the time I wrote and addressed this letter, I was not aware that Drescher had been replaced by yet another managing editor. Her name is Tonnya M. Kennedy. Like her predecessors, she rejected any complaint about Brett Bursey, and never responded to my letter.

In October 2004, I made one last effort to reason with The State. I sent another letter to Tonnya Kennedy, laying out my case against Brett Bursey. I sent copies of this letter to Vice President Mark Lett, Publisher Ann Caulkins and Steven B. Rossi, Vice President/Newspaper Division at Knight Ridder Corp. None of these good journalists thought it worth their time to respond.

The job of reporting the truth about Brett Bursey now falls to me and the Internet has given me the means to do it. But, of course, this story is as much about The State as it is about Brett Bursey. Bursey could not exist without The State and The State thrives on the sensationalism Brett Bursey has provided it over the last 35 years.

It is also worth noting that no one – not Brett Bursey, nor Dawn Hinshaw, nor Paula Ellis, nor any of Bursey’s lawyers – no one has ever disputed my charges against him. What they have sought in concert is suppress the charges and keep them from ever reaching the public.

Now that you know the truth about Brett Bursey and The State, there are several things you must do:

• Make a copy of this story, because there are powerful interests that may seek to hack into this website and destroy or alter this information.
• Notify friends and associates of this website.
• Start writing letters and making phone calls to executives at The State and at Knight-Ridder and let them know that you are onto them. Here are the people you need to contact:

Mark E. Lett, Vice President and Executive Editor, The State

Address: P.O. Box 1333

Columbia SC 29202

Phone: (803) 771-6161

D. Ann Caulkins, President and Publisher, The State

Address: P.O. Box 1333

Columbia SC 29202

Phone: (803) 771-6161

The new owner of The State is the McClatchy Company, headquartered in Sacramento, California. The CEO of McClatchy is Gary B. Pruitt. The vice president for news is Howard Weaver. These are the people you need to contact if you want to see The State finally come clean on the Brett Bursey story. There is no direct contact to these executives available to the public, but the company can be reached by email at contact@mcclatchy.com.

Phone: (916) 321-1846.
Fax: (916) 321-1964.
Address: 2100 Q Street.

Also, write letters to the editor of The State at the above address, or go to www.TheState.com/Forums/General. Let them know that you know about the Brett Bursey cover up. After 35 years, it’s time to tell the truth.

Good luck.