Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

April 18, 2024

Dee Burgin – Caught Lying on Police Report – Admits to Buying Signs –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On April 8, 2014

Dee Burgin, “the gift that keeps on giving”, a disgraced former Deputy Sheriff, found guilty in federal court of civil rights violations on a young woman, former ambulance service owner that got away with not paying the $100,000 sale price to the taxpayers of Edgar County, current member of the Emergency Telephone System Board, and current employee of the Newman Police Department and Lawrence County Ambulance Service, has forced his name into the spotlight once again and we are more than happy to oblige.
Prior to the primary election someone mailed a cowardly two-page letter to voters of Edgar County, and we believe he was the culprit (here and here).  Now we have confirmation from him that he bought the “Take the Ed out of Edgar County” signs that ended up on people’s property that did not appreciate them being there.
Last fall someone had started putting these signs up around town and I immediately thought there was an underlying motive, other than the obvious message, to alienate a public official because he “isn’t from here” and “isn’t one of us”. But, Mr. Burgin is still entitled to his opinion, you know, even though he isn’t “from here” either. Two of the larger, more noticeable, 4 foot by 8 foot hand-painted signs were placed and kept on Chris Patrick’s Zimmerly Ready Mix property and in Mike Heltsley’s front yard – and a small minority of people still wonder why there is a problem between the county board and the Sheriff.
In the days leading up to the primary, someone had installed smaller versions of these signs on people’s property without asking permission, and in the county and state highway right-of-ways (ROW) – public property. At least one property owner called the Edgar County Sheriff’s Department and filed a criminal trespass to property complaint against whomever placed the sign on their property, stating they were exceptionally alarmed and disturbed at the signs that appeared to have a subliminal hate message that went along with them, being that the sign was painted black with florescent green lettering.
During the investigation, the Deputy questioned Dee Burgin who admitted to purchasing the signs, but denied remembering who he gave them to, and claimed he was out of town the entire weekend that the signs were installed. But he did say that some of the signs had been stolen…I wonder how he knew that if he couldn’t remember who he gave them to and was out of town when they were installed. He later stated that one (by name) property owner called him to talk to him about the signs.
That’s where we can verify the lie, because that named property owner stated that he never called Mr. Burgin about signs or any other matter and he offered his phone records to the Sheriff Department as proof that he never called Burgin.
This situation is still under investigation, and from what I understand has been referred to the State’s Attorney  for possible prosecution.
I doubt if anyone observed the sign installations because cowards work in the dark of night to avoid being caught. But just in case, if anyone has any information on who put the signs up, or saw anyone putting the signs up, please contact us through our hotline and we will keep it confidential – but we must be able to verify the information.
I will personally ask the County Board to remove Mr. Burgin from the ETSB board immediately, for cause, and that cause is that he lied to the deputy during the investigation – which in and of itself is a crime.
Our “spoof” on the original sign:


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Donna
    Posted at 11:23h, 08 April

    What if we remove the gar from Edgar County. Gar-a slow moving archaic predator with sharp pointy teeth, who prey on smaller fish. Gar live in weedy,shallow, even brackish waters, only surfacing to gulp air. They can move quite quickly when attacking smaller prey. Gar will move through sewers to get to another pond (watch out Newman). It seems to me that Ed is not the problem in Edgar county. The gar are the problem in Edgar county

  • Guillermo
    Posted at 17:04h, 08 April

    WOW! So sad that he is unable to make good decisions, thinks lying is OK and blames others for his problems. Mr. Burgin, take stock of your life and make an effort to improve it instead of trying to slander and trample on others…

  • Taxpayer
    Posted at 20:45h, 08 April

    Maybe “Ed” should do his job and abide by a federal arbitrator said and put them back to work instead of spending more of our taxpayers dollars!

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 21:31h, 08 April

      Maybe “Ed” is doing his job by letting a Court decide? That’s what they are there for, to settle disputes between parties.

  • hgviuybgviybhiuhi
    Posted at 01:11h, 09 April

    I live right across the road and watch him put them up! Lol! Him and his new girlfriend.

  • Greg Miller
    Posted at 12:00h, 09 April

    Although Burgin has ethical issues and has displayed poor judgement, why is it that the watch dogs have such ax to grind against him? On the other hand, I don’t approve of Ed but given that majority of te voters are Republica they will continue to vote for Ed simply because he has an R next to his name.

  • Jake
    Posted at 12:19h, 09 April

    The real problem here lies once again in our government slacking on their duties, if this was a ordinary citizen of Edgar county law enforcement and our court system would have already prosecuted them. This man has a history of dubious activity over the last decade and yet he is still here still causing problems, seems pretty simple to charge him with multiple crimes that all have been stated on this post and send him to prison, simple as that.

  • Old copper
    Posted at 21:05h, 09 April

    I believe you are wrong when you say it is illegal to lie to a deputy in an investigation. I believe the only branch of government it is illegal to lie to is the Federal Government ie. IRS, FBI. As long as he was not wanted, and lied about his identity, you can lie to a police officer about your actions all day long and there is no charge. See Illinois Vs. Baskerville. You can lie, you just can not impede. Just like a police officer can lie to you in an investigation, but that is a Supreme Court ruling.

  • franklin
    Posted at 03:36h, 10 April

    That’s where we can verify the lie, because that named property owner stated that he never called Mr. Burgin about signs or any other matter and he offered his phone records to the Sheriff Department as proof that he never called Burgin
    Maybe he used a phone other than his own to make the call ? Also where can I see sheriffs report that you are talking about do I foi it ? .

  • JustMe
    Posted at 07:39h, 10 April

    Its not right “if” he did put them up with out the home owners knowinv. an I’m not going to lie i dislike D for my own personal reasons maybe so does everyone rlse in this town?!? Its not right when police use their powets in the wrong way an sorry but he was one that did!

  • Brooks
    Posted at 07:45h, 10 April

    You sir are a f***ng tool and nobody’s gives a flying f**k what you think. Rant overB

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 08:09h, 10 April

      Thanks for your opinion, but please refrain from the foul language.

  • Robert O. Bogue
    Posted at 11:48h, 10 April

    Perhaps I can save you some time and effort. Since Bergin made the statements on a police report (in defense of his alleged criminal actions)…then wouldn’t it seem reasonable, for Bergin to provide proof by supplying the number and time this conversation was held? Particularly now, that he’s been called out as lying on a police report…which is something he did. The short story on this is: there was no conversation and I did not visit with him. My cell phone and records were voluntarily offered to the investigating deputy after I discovered the lie and then went to the sheriff’s office to report same.
    As you suggest, if that conversation did occur another phone could have been used. The problem with that is, regardless of what phone was used, Bergin’s caller id and phone records would prove that….if he even received any calls from anyone at all. Again, I did not call him and he needs to produce his records or apologize. Thank goodness for cell phones and the records they keep.
    Now to the matter at hand. I object to all of these racist hate signs: and the fact they were displayed along state, county and City right of ways in my community. These were all (allegedly) created and displayed by a very small group of self empowered individuals such as Dee Bergin (present and past law officer ), Mike Heltsley (present county board member known for his extreme brilliance) and, even a share holder of Zimmerly Ready Mix/Chris Patrick (former county board chair person and county board member) to name a few.
    What is clear, is, these are not campaign signs. They did not ask that you vote for a certain candidate. They did not identify who they where or how to contact them. Those placing these signs up along state right of ways and in other places have yet to accept any responsibility.
    These signs were painted black for a reason. There was only one black candidate in this past Edgar County primary race. They called Ed out in their sign. They directed you to vote for anyone else but Ed. They did not ask that you vote for their candidate….but that you remove him; not just from his office but asked that you remove him from the entire of Edgar County. Does it really get any simpler than this?
    What a horrible racist hate statement this makes to the world around us; and about our community. Who in their right mind would really want to move into in the Paris area, knowing this is the home of discrimination and hate? What factory would want to bring jobs to our community and employ our citizens knowing this behavior is allowed, not only the county board and members but, when it’s the obvious mind set of a law officer with a gun and a badge?
    Franklin, I appreciate your interest, hope this information saves you some time and that it’s something you find helpful. With Best Regards, Rob.

    • franklin
      Posted at 12:15h, 11 April

      MR. Bogue was there ever a sign across from your property? Simple yes or no

  • Sick of it all......
    Posted at 15:06h, 10 April

    Greg Miller- I don’t see the Watchdogs as having an ax to grind with Mr. Burgin…. they just want to make sure those appointed and elected public servants are doing the jobs they are supposed to be doing and doing them lawfully and ethically. Mr. Burgin keeps doing things to bring himself to the attention of the Watchdogs and others in the community. Mr. Burgin is trying to get his position back with the Sheriff’s Dept… you pointed out, Mr. Burgin has ethical issues and judgement issues to say the least……I for one don’t think we need someone with all those issues in that type of position! Kind of like letting the inmates run the asylum..I’m glad that Sheriff Motley is trying to overturn the arbitrators decision. The others that were running for sheriff only wanted to settle the lawsuit……Not one of them said they actually agreed with the arbitrator or agreed that both should be reinstated on the force, that they were unjustly let go. Just that they wanted the lawsuit to go away. You don’t approve of Sheriff Motley…… is it something he’s done unethically or unlawfully? Or is it just that things aren’t being done as they always have been in the past? And I think it was extremely rude of you to state that the only reason anyone would vote for Sheriff Motley is because there was an R next to his name…as though they aren’t smart enough to make a decision based on his record, which as far as I can see far exceeds the previous sheriff’s accomplishments.

  • franklin
    Posted at 06:14h, 11 April

    a snake in the grass has raised his head again

  • franklin
    Posted at 13:44h, 12 April

    The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Baskerville has made it both easier and more difficult to prosecute people for obstruction under 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a). On one hand, obstruction does not require a physical act, lying to a police officer also falls under the conduct prohibited by the statute. On the other hand, lying to a police officer is not enough to violate the statute even though most people would agree that when someone lies to you, that is always a hindrance. The State must prove the lie actually hindered the conduct of a police officer. The court refused to accept the argument that the lie gave Mrs. Baskerville time to hide in the house. So if a police officer wants to charge someone under 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a), it will not be enough to say the officer was lied to. And if someone wants to lie to a police officer, they are free to do so as long as the lie does not impede the officer in any way.