Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Explanation of Investigation


“The City of Richardson hired a third party to investigate Nathan Morgan who was named as an expert witness for the plaintiff in a 2007 lawsuit against the City. The lawsuit alleged that the City was violating the charter. The city planned and in fact took a deposition of Mr. Morgan.

To prepare for the deposition and possible cross examination of the designated expert witness at trial, the City hired a private investigator to look in to background and credentials of the expert witness. Such background checks include marital history, as well as a variety of other criteria that could deal with the credibility of a witness. It is not uncommon to hire an investigator for such matters in civil lawsuits.”

That explains it. He was a witness in a suit against the city in which the city council held secret meetings in violation of the charter.

And because his marriage and divorce decrees are so important to the issue that was at hand, the city council holding secret meetings when the charter did not allow it. Got it.

It sounds more like they were looking for a way to impeach a witness, or intimidation.

In the words of our former chief, “… Looks like another dead end." I wonder how many dead ends they ran into with the investigation.


  1. Why was Nathan, an expert witness because of his volunteerism as an election judge, the only person that had an investigation done? Why was it prudent to distribute those records secretly to the council on the evening packets were distributed? Why was it given to the candidates that year? No one would have known to look had it not been for the arrogance of staff and council to distribute the information. I call BS on the explanation

  2. I think you can safely call BS period.

  3. I call BS as well. By 9/9/2007, according to the text message from the chief to the city manager, there has been numerous "dead ends". The lawsuit was not even filed until 10/26/2007. They would not have known he would have been a witness, expert or otherwise. Bullshit.

  4. The expert witness list was given to the city attorney well after the Dec 2007 hiring of a PI. They went after a citizen who wanted the improprieties to end. Once again the city has lied.

  5. Timelines are amazing things.

  6. On April 5, 2007, Randy D Virgil of Information Services Investigations submitted the public information request to the Richardson Police Department.

    Bill McCalpin's cites, "Original suit filed 10-26-2007 in the 68th District Court, Dallas, Texas."

    The big question is, why did the city of Richardson justify their investigation of a private citizen as an expert witness in a civil suit that dind't exist? Liars!

    I offer my response to the city of Richardson's tale published about investigating me.

    While we can accept the standard practice of investigating potential witnesses in an indefensible civil suit, there is more to the story than the city has disclosed. The city's now admitted investigation uncovered multiple simultaneous marriages of another individual by the same name of a different ethnicity.

    What was not provided in the published explanation is how portions of the information gathered that included insinuations of polygamy were anonymously mailed to friends and prominent members of the community, and why. Was this an effort to cast an upstanding citizen in a bad light in the community, or an effort to discount legitimate testimony in a legal proceeding?

    It is true that I once divorced an unrepentant, adulterous spouse and have suffered many insensitive questions as a result. One day the Mayor's husband may get questioned by a curious political insider regarding the number of times he has been married that will revive horrific recollections of the betrayal of the day.

    To be certain, whatever happened prior to deciding to become a Richardson resident had no bearing on the City of Richardson's decision to violate state law by holding meetings closed to the public, or any of the countless other instances of questionable actions by a municipal government long-overdue for renovation. It seems clear to me that my investigation of the city revealed some equally, if not more uncomfortable circumstances and this was just a way to get revenge.

    This is yet another example of the city's deceptive practices. Richardson residents deserve better.

    Nathan Morgan