The Fairley Connection: What Did Johnny DuPree Know?

Editor's note: This report is an updated follow-up to the earlier investigation, The Mayor, the Deacon and the Pastor. It adds documented information concerning Kenneth Fairley's relationship with Marcus Dupree and clarifies that Marcus Dupree and Johnny DuPree are not related.

This is not a story about guilt by association. It is a story about public responsibility. Kenneth E. Fairley Sr., pastor of the church where Johnny DuPree served as a longtime leader, was convicted in a federal conspiracy involving housing money administered through the City of Hattiesburg during DuPree's mayoral administration.

Fairley led Pinebelt Community Services, a nonprofit selected to participate in a federally funded affordable-housing program administered through the city. DuPree testified that his relationship with Fairley extended back to the seventh grade.

What the federal record established

In March 2010, Hattiesburg designated Pinebelt as an approved Community Housing Development Organization. The city later contracted with Pinebelt to rehabilitate two houses through HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships Program.

Pinebelt submitted requests to Hattiesburg totaling $98,000. According to the Fifth Circuit's account of the trial evidence, documents represented that Artie Fletcher's company had been competitively selected and billed Pinebelt for $98,000 in construction costs. The government presented evidence that the company performed no work on the properties and that approximately $38,000 was spent rehabilitating them.

A federal jury convicted Fairley of conspiracy and two substantive theft counts. He was sentenced to 36 months in federal custody, ordered to pay $60,223.95 in restitution and fined $30,000.

The Fifth Circuit later vacated the two substantive counts because errors in the indictment, jury instructions and verdict form undermined Fairley's defense. The appellate court expressly affirmed the conspiracy conviction. The district court left his 36-month sentence in place, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision in 2019.

Those distinctions matter. Two counts were vacated, but Fairley's federal conspiracy conviction was not erased.

What responsibility belonged to City Hall?

The program operated through the City of Hattiesburg. Trial reporting quoted a former HUD employee testifying that the city was responsible for overseeing the participating nonprofit.

Who reviewed Pinebelt's request before the city released $98,000? Who confirmed that the contractor identified in the paperwork performed the represented work? Why was payment approved when critical records were reportedly missing? When did DuPree first learn of the documentation problems, and what corrective action did he order?

The record shows action and a troubling contradiction

The public record indicates that DuPree's administration requested HUD's assistance obtaining documents from Pinebelt. A later HUD inspector-general review states that it addressed a request from Hattiesburg's mayor for a comprehensive examination of the city's HOME program. Those actions must be acknowledged.

But they do not end the inquiry.

At Fairley's trial, retired city inspector Randy Jordan testified that a project had serious deficiencies and that DuPree called him into a meeting and placed him “on the hot seat.” According to Jordan's reported testimony, DuPree told him, in substance, to close out the project. Jordan said he worried about his job.

That was witness testimony, not a judicial finding that DuPree committed wrongdoing. DuPree was not charged or convicted in Fairley's case. Nevertheless, the testimony deserves a direct response.

Then there is DuPree's own appearance at the trial. Fairley's defense called DuPree as its ninth witness. DuPree testified about his long relationship with Fairley while Fairley stood accused of conspiring to misuse money connected to a housing program administered by DuPree's city government.

A second DuPree connection, but not a family connection

Kenneth Fairley also had a documented professional relationship with former football star Marcus Dupree. Contemporary reporting identified Fairley as Marcus Dupree's former agent and reported that Marcus later sued Fairley.

That history raises legitimate questions about Fairley's business relationships, but it does not establish a family link to Johnny DuPree. The Associated Press expressly reported that the former Hattiesburg mayor and the football player are not related.

The public record therefore does not support asking whether Johnny DuPree used his pastor to take money from a family member. Marcus Dupree was not Johnny DuPree's family member. The evidence-supported questions are different: What was the nature of Fairley's financial relationship with Marcus Dupree? What claims did Marcus make in his lawsuit? How was that dispute resolved? And did Johnny DuPree know about the dispute while maintaining his close political, personal and religious relationship with Fairley?

What did DuPree do to hold Fairley accountable?

Requesting federal assistance and an audit were legitimate oversight steps. The public deserves to know precisely when DuPree requested them, what prompted those requests, what findings he received and what corrective measures followed.

Did the city seek recovery of public money? Did DuPree order an independent investigation of the departments and procedures involved? Did he disclose his personal, political and religious relationship with Fairley when decisions concerning Pinebelt were made? Did he recuse himself from any related decisions? How does he answer the inspector's sworn allegation that the mayor pressured him to close out a troubled project?

Accountability cannot depend on relationships

Church membership is not evidence of criminal conduct. Friendship is not evidence of criminal conduct. Testifying as a defense witness is not, by itself, unlawful.

But when public money passes through an administration and a close associate is convicted of conspiring to steal government funds connected to that program, voters have every right to examine how the administration responded.

Johnny DuPree should be given an opportunity to answer these questions fully and on the record. The people should then decide whether his answers demonstrate accountability or whether personal loyalty was permitted to compete with public responsibility.

This investigation is continuing. Additional records, responses and documented findings will be reported as they are verified.

John Robert Badger
Presidential Candidate and Human Rights Advocate
October 4, 2026

Right of response and correction policy: Johnny DuPree, Kenneth Fairley and every person or organization named in this report may submit records, explanations or factual corrections for review. Material verified corrections will be identified transparently.