Ever since news broke that County Attorney Tim Scannell had a harassment restraining order issued against him by a Cook County family concerned about his relationship with their 17-year-old daughter, protestors have gathered at the courthouse on Fridays. From two to 10 people picket each week calling for Scannell’s resignation. Gary Nesgoda, pictured here with his protest sign, recently contacted Cook County Law Enforcement to report what he said was harassment by the county attorney.
One of the people persistently calling for the resignation of County Attorney Tim Scannell made a police report last week, wanting to go on record about what he felt was harassment by the county attorney. The county attorney said his interaction with Gary Nesgoda of Grand Marais was not harassment, but simply a case of follow-up on an unfinished criminal complaint.
Nesgoda of Grand Marais is one of about 10 “courthouse protestors,” a group of citizens who have gathered at the Cook County courthouse every Friday (and some Wednesdays) with picket signs since news broke in December 2012 that the 47-year-old county attorney was the subject of a restraining order related to his relationship with a 17-year-old girl.
Nesgoda contacted the Cook County Sheriff ’s Office on Monday, August 5, 2013 to report a confrontation with the county attorney. Nesgoda explained to the Cook County News-Herald that he was disturbed by an unexpected encounter with County Attorney Tim Scannell. Nesgoda said he had stopped by a local hair salon to make an appointment for a family member. Nesgoda said the county attorney was there. Nesgoda said he was shocked when County Attorney Scannell asked him about an incident that occurred in 2006 for which he was not charged or prosecuted.
The incident is not part of the 6th District Court records, however, the Cook County News- Herald obtained a copy of the Call for Service Report on the incident from the Cook County Sheriff ’s Department. In the October 21, 2006 report filed by Deputy Tim Weitz, the incident type is listed as “Trespass with unknown intent.” A police call came from an individual who was staying at a residence on County Road 7 who wanted to report that in the early hours of that morning, Nesgoda broke into the house, breaking the lock on the garage door. The reporting party said nothing else happened, but extra patrols were requested.
Deputy Tim Weitz took a statement from Nesgoda the next day and Nesgoda admitted going to the residence and going inside without being invited. Deputy Weitz wrote, “Gary did not have a clear recollection of all the events due to his alcohol consumption.” Weitz said the matter would be referred to the county attorney who would decide if any charges would be filed.
Deputy Weitz also took a statement from the reporting party and the homeowner and informed them that for the matter to go forward, the homeowner would have to file a complaint. Weitz also wrote that he inspected the garage door with the homeowner and both found no damage. On November 16, 2006, the property owner told Deputy Weitz that she did not want to make a complaint. The matter went no farther.
Nesgoda readily admits that his past behavior has not been stellar—he has a possession of marijuana charge in 2005 and two driving under the influence convictions, one in 2006 and one in 2007 on his court record. Nesgoda said he regrets the incident, but he believed it was behind him. “I was drunk,” said Nesgoda. “I was escorted away. I thought that was it.”
Nesgoda, who said he has been sober since January 11, 2008, questioned the county attorney’s authority to go through old law enforcement records. “Is he allowed to do this? And, is he allowed to talk about stuff like this in a public place like that?” asked Nesgoda.
County Attorney Scannell, reached by phone on August 27, confirmed that a conversation about the 2006 incident took place at the hair salon. He said he brought up the matter because it was on his mind, as he had just learned about it. Scannell said he had received a call from an individual who seemed “very upset” and who refused to leave a name. Scannell said the caller asked him if “he knew the guy that was protesting on the courthouse lawn.” Scannell said the caller referred to the 2006 incident and alleged that Nesgoda had “attacked someone.” Based on that call, Scannell said, he did some research and found the Call for Service Report. And, Scannell said, he was very disturbed to find that the incident had not made its way to the county attorney’s office for review.
Scannell said normally the county attorney’s office reviews all reports from the sheriff ’s office. If charges are filed, the document then becomes part of a court file or it gets a notation that it was reviewed and a decision was made not to prosecute. Scannell said there was no record that the county attorney’s office had ever received the Call for Service Report.
The News-Herald contacted former County Attorney Bill Hennessey and former City Attorney Don Davison, both who would have been in office in 2006, asking if they recalled this incident. Neither did, but after reviewing the Call for Service Report, Davison said, “This is one of those ‘problem taken care of without any necessity of prosecution’ incidents. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such incidents each year that do not rise to prosecutable offenses.”
Scannell, who would have been assistant county attorney at the time of the incident, was considering what could be done about what he considered an oversight when he bumped into Nesgoda at the salon. Scannell said when he saw Nesgoda, he mentioned it because he did not realize the statute of limitations had expired. According to Minnesota Statutes 628.26 (k) “indictments or complaints shall be found or made and filed in the proper court within three years after the commission of the offense.”
The News-Herald asked Scannell if that meant he would have pursued charges if the statute of limitations had not run its course. Scannell replied, “I’ve never had anything like that happen. I probably would have been obligated to speak to law enforcement. Hypothetically, if you get something late, but we have a case, you would charge. We would have to look at the case.”
“What agitated me was that I had never heard about it,” stressed Scannell, adding, “I didn’t harass Gary. Gary does harass me. I try very hard not to talk to Gary.”
Nesgoda said he has no problem with Scannell talking to him about his past—just not in places like the hair salon. “He can come talk to me out in front of the courthouse all he wants,” said Nesgoda, who again pledged that he will continue to protest in front of the courthouse until Scannell resigns or is removed from office.
Scannell first gained local and national attention in December 15, 2011 after being critically injured in a shooting in his office. Scannell was shot by a defendant he had successfully convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a teenaged girl. The county attorney initiated litigation against Cook County related to that shooting in April 2013.
Scannell again made headlines when a harassment restraining order was issued against him on December 4, 2014 by a Cook County family concerned about the safety and well being of their 17-year-old daughter. The relationship with the young woman led to an investigation by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Investigation which has turned over its report to Special Prosecutor Thomas B. Heffelfinger. Heffelfinger has been appointed “to review the BCA documents for potential prosecution, and, if appropriate, to conduct a prosecution.”
At press time, Heffelfinger said he was still working on a BCA case related to Cook County but had no information to share at this time.
Leave a Reply