MOUNT CARMEL - A Mount Carmel couple filed an amended complaint Tuesday, the final day before a judge's ruling to dismiss their case claiming their property was seized illegally as part of the Shamokin Creek Flood Control project became final.
U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the claim of Thomas M. Bolick, also known as Thomas M. Bolick Jr., and his wife, Eileen Bolick, Feb. 10, acting on a recommendation filed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick Jan. 14.
Brann also adopted Mehalchik's recommendation to grant the Bolicks a 21-day period to file an amended claim due to the reason for dismissal being failure to state a claim and not knowing for certain that an amended claim could not fix this issue.
The lawsuit claims the Bolicks' house at 224-226 N. Locust St., Mount Carmel, was improperly demolished and the property within was not accounted for. The Bolicks demanded $1 million through a trial from Northumberland County; Mount Carmel Borough; county Judge Charles H. Saylor; Northeast Industrial Services Corp., Mount Carmel; Northeast owner William R. Williams, Shamokin; Jeff Kurtz, of Jeff's Recycling, Paxinos; borough manager Edward T. Cuff III; Ballard Spahr transacting business, of Philadelphia; Philadelphia attorney Daniel McKenna; Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP transacting business, of Philadelphia; Discover Financial Services, of Wilmington, Del.; and Discover Bank of Delaware, of New Castle, Del.
The original 18-page complaint led Borough Council President Tony Matulewicz to call it a "nuisance lawsuit." The Bolicks subsequently filed an amended complaint claiming defamation against The News-Item and its parent company, The Scranton Times LP, for printing Matulewicz's comments.
In crafting her 25-page report, Mehalchick sorted the various claims against the 14 named defendants into two "separate and unrelated events."
"The Bolicks contend that all of the events described in the amended complaint are manifestations of a larger conspiracy among all of the defendants," she said.
The two issues, said Mehalchick, are the demolition of the Bolicks' house and related removal of property and a nearly five-year-old battle over a charge to their Discover Card account.
"The Bolicks claim that they are the victims of federal antitrust violations perpetrated by a conspiracy between Ballard Spahr and the county to deprive the Bolicks of their due process rights," said Mehalchick in her summary.
This conspiracy originated when, on March 26, 2010, the Bolicks' obtained "a default judgment from a state magisterial district judge against one of an apparent multitude of Discover Financial subsidiaries" only to have that decision "vacated without prejudice by the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas for lack of jurisdiction on Feb. 7, 2011."
"Most of the remaining claims asserted in the amended complaint are directed at all of the defendants, whom the Bolicks allege to have participated in a grand scheme or conspiracy against them," Mehalchick said.
She cited the Bolicks' failure to state a claim and Saylor's judicial immunity in her reasoning behind recommending dismissal of the suit.
New claims
While many sections of the Bolicks' 124-page March 3 amended complaint are identical to an amended complaint filed in July, the new document appears to attempt to establish a factual basis for their conspiracy theory.
According to the complaint, the borough conspired with Northeast Industrial Services Corp. to ignore regulations passed by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding asbestos and knowingly tore down the Bolicks' house, which contained asbestos.
The asbestos issue was not mentioned in the Bolicks' initial complaint. Both Cuff and Matulewicz have previously told The News-Item that all proper procedures were followed in acquiring and demolishing the homes.
The Bolicks allege Mount Carmel Code Officer Robin Williams conspired with William Williams, of Northeast Industrial Services, to complete the tear-down.
"On information and belief Mount Carmel code enforcer agent (Robin) Williams is a relative of the defendants Northeast Industrial Services Corporation (William) Williams and gives them preferential treatment," the Bolicks' allege.
Robin Williams said Wednesday he is not a relative of William Williams. The 2000 census shows Williams is the third most common last name in the United States, with more than 1.5 million occurrences.
Also new, the Bolicks' cite a ticket issued by Robin Williams shortly before 10:30 a.m. Jan. 29 for failing to remove snow and ice from their sidewalk on a property they own at 205 S. Market St., Mount Carmel, as evidence he is retaliating against Thomas Bolick for filing a rebuttal against the borough's claim it had not been properly served with paperwork related to the lawsuit.
Williams issued 209 tickets of this type following snowstorms on Jan. 26 and Feb. 9. He also said he took photographs of each home establishing the violation of the ordinance requiring sidewalks to be cleared to a 36-inch wide path within 24 hours of a winter storm.
The Bolicks claim the amendment is unconstitutional because it permits Williams to write citations "in an arbitrary fashion against anyone who displeases him" while not doing the same to others.
Connections to 1980
A lengthy section in the amended complaint claims retaliation by judges for Thomas Bolick's attempts to have a 1980 felony robbery charge removed from his record.
Bolick has tried approximately 20 times to have the conviction, which was the result of a guilty plea made by him to charges related to robbing the Mount Carmel drive-in branch of First National Bank, wiped from his record.
Judges on multiple circuits have upheld the conviction, and an appeal is still pending.
The complaint includes an appendix with a crudely drawn sketch of the location of the Bolicks' properties along Shamokin Creek as well as properties of their relatives, letters from various state and federal government agencies explaining the Shamokin Creek Project, docket sheets pertaining to the lawsuit with Discover and an attempt to overturn Thomas Bolick's criminal conviction, a copy of his snow and ice removal ordinance violation ticket and stubs from the Bolicks' property tax payments.
Also included is a copy of liability insurance with Thomas Bolick's address listed as 1377 Second St. Pike, Richboro. Both Bolick's Richboro home and 224 N. Locust St., Mount Carmel, are named on the coverage list. The coverage amounts are blacked out. It is unclear why this item is included as the date of coverage begins May 10, 2014, which is more than two months after the filing of the Bolicks' initial complaint and more than two years after the home in question was demolished.
In the amended complaint, the Bolicks are asking for more than $10 million from each defendant.