Bolus sues over Lackawanna County commissioner vacancy
Scranton resident Bob Bolus entered the legal fray over the filling of a Lackawanna County commissioner vacancy.
Bolus filed a lawsuit April 10 in Lackawanna County Court against Democratic Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan that seeks to bar him from having county-paid legal representation in pending litigation over the vacancy of former Commissioner Matt McGloin.
Gaughan and the county initiated litigation last month seeking to remove the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee from the process of replacing McGloin, a Democrat who resigned in late February.
The vacancy litigation pits Gaughan/the county against the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee over whether the vacancy should be filled pursuant to the county's Home Rule Charter or a state court rule. The charter process had the Democratic Committee picking three candidates to forward to county judges, who then would select one to fill the McGloin vacancy. The Gaughan/county challenge to the charter process claims it is trumped by Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908 of 2019, which says the county court — not a political party — shall receive applications from any interested candidates for the position.
Lackawanna County Senior Judges Carmen Minora, Robert Mazzoni and Vito Geroulo sitting as a panel will hear oral arguments Tuesday in the vacancy litigation.
The lawsuit by Bolus, a Republican, raises arguments similar to those of Republican Lackawanna County Commissioner Chris Chermak — mainly that Gaughan acted unilaterally and if he wants to pursue the litigation, he should do so individually, with his own personal attorney and pay for his own legal bills.
County Comissioner Chris Chermak listens to commissioner Bill Gaughan's comments at the conclusion of the Lackawanna County commissioners meeting at the Lackawanna County Government Center in Scranton on Wednesday, March 19, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
Bolus has been a vocal critic of Gaughan for years and has portrayed him as a cartoon skunk on a tractor-trailer festooned with political messages. Bolus filed his lawsuit on a 'pro-se' basis, meaning without an attorney, and as a tort against Gaughan, and not as part of the vacancy litigation. Seeking a judgment in excess of $50,000, Bolus also filed on April 11 a companion petition for a preliminary injunction to stop Gaughan from using taxpayer funds to litigate the vacancy issue.
'By the time a civil case is litigated, the tax payer funds will have have been spent already,' Bolus' petition for an injunction says.
As of Thursday afternoon, the court had not taken any action on Bolus' injunction petition. Whether he has legal standing to pursue such a lawsuit or whether it follows rules of civil procedure, or whether it might be rendered moot if the vacancy dispute is resolved first, all remain to be seen.
Gaughan also had not yet formally responded in court to Bolus' lawsuit. In a phone interview Thursday, Gaughan said: 'I did receive it and I had a very, very good chuckle, a good laugh. I don't take Bob Bolus seriously at all. He's a fruit fly. He's a nuisance to society and this will most likely get dismissed, like almost every other lawsuit he's had.'
Bolus argues he has legal standing to pursue the lawsuit as a property owner, resident and taxpayer in the county.
Last week, the panel of judges did not allow the Democratic Committee's top candidate, former county economic development Director Brenda Sacco, to enter the vacancy litigation as an intervenor, ruling that she has no legal standing in the matter and her interests are adequately represented by the committee.
The Democratic Committee also contends that Gaughan and the county lack legal standing to pursue the vacancy litigation. But Gaughan and the county reject that claim, citing law giving municipalities and their officials standing to challenge the constitutionality of actions affecting their government functions and interests.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘MAGA Will Not Sell Out to Ketamine': In the Trump-Musk Breakup, the MAGA Faithful Is Sticking With Trump
People had a lot of worries at Butterworth's on Thursday night. In the hours after the near-apocalyptic online showdown between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, a palpable angst permeated the fashionable MAGA bistro on Capitol Hill. As the Velvet Underground crooned 'Oh! Sweet Nuthin'' over the sound system, patrons let loose with their anxieties: Was the gas station erectile dysfunction drug 'Rhino Dick' safe? Would the guy from The Heritage Foundation ever stop stealing their beef tallow-soaked french fries? These were the pressing concerns for this far-right crowd. But Elon Musk's online attacks on Donald Trump? Those were mere trifles at the Trumpist haunt where lamb tartare, not cheeseburgers, is on the menu. In the hours after the Musk-Trump feud blew up online, with the tech billionaire bashing the Republican spending bill, suggesting Trump should be impeached and tying him to notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, those criticisms barely registered. As the denizens of Butterworth saw things, the kerfuffle was simply the temper tantrum of a disgruntled administration official who'd run afoul of a popular president. And Trump's counter attacks dismissing the world's richest man as 'going CRAZY'? Now that was gospel. At a night in which MAGA personalities congregated to greet the British Ambassador, Lord Mandelson for the unveiling of a plaque in his honor at the restaurant, the spat was little more than a sideshow. Still, the men and women bumping up to the bar all had their opinions. Raheem Kassam, the longtime ally of Nigel Farage, who is a part owner of the restaurant, waved off Musk's Twitter spree as the rantings of a mega donor disappointed that he could not bend the Republican Party to his will. 'The Tea Party sold out to Koch,' said Kassam. 'MAGA will not sell out to ketamine,' in a reference to first, the billionaire Koch brothers and second, Musk's admitted use of the anesthetic. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief for Breitbart and longtime conservative media powerhouse, opined biblically, 'Pride cometh, before the fall. Elon Musk got too big for his britches. This was destined to happen. It's better now than later. President Trump is going to win, as he always does.' One key theme last night: For all his wealth, Elon Musk has never run for office. Donald Trump was on the ballot, not the billionaire. As conservative influencer C.J. Pearson noted, 'The reason I'm in this movement is because of President Trump. And the person that was on the ballot was President Trump. The American people voted overwhelmingly for him — not for Elon Musk.' Pearson added of those defending the tech mogul, 'I think it's unfortunate to see people who are so desperate for validation from someone like Elon Musk, they're betraying the very person who made them who they are.' As one Trump administration appointee, who asked not to be identified because they were there for drinks, not work, put it starkly, 'This is Elon's insurrection. He's disloyal.' Not everyone there was willing to go quite that far. Mandelson, the evening's honoree, had witnessed titanic personality clashes across the pond, notably, the decades-long drama between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He dismissed the Trump-Musk drama as 'a small earthquake.' He added as a careful diplomatic caveat, 'I don't really follow it because I'm not on social media. So I have no idea what they're saying to each other.' Natalie Winters, the hard right media personality on Steve Bannon's War Room, coyly responded 'I'll let the men handle that one.' Another administration appointee, who asked not to be identified so they could speak freely, noted that Musk represented a different libertarian element on the right than the more populist aspects of Trump's party. Both, the appointee said, have a place in the GOP. 'It was a very valid conversation.' However, the appointee noted that Trump had not run his campaign on what the billionaire wanted. Musk, they said, would have few defenders. 'People want careers in politics and when they see the writing on the wall,' the appointee said, 'they see the writing on the wall.' Outside the Capitol Hill restaurant, Musk did not find a sympathetic audience from other members of the right, either. After former top White House aide Steve Bannon suggested that the South African born billionaire should be deported, one administration official, who asked not to be identified so they could speak frankly, told POLITICO Magazine, 'Elon should be careful. Trump could easily drug test him based on erratic behavior and nationalize SpaceX.' Other Beltway Republicans merely groaned at the additional work that this online drama created. "A lot of staffers are having to explain what Ketamine is to their bosses this week," one said. But inside Butterworth's on Thursday, all of that was irrelevant. For the blazer-and-slacks crowd at the bar, all that really mattered was that the Guinness taps were flowing for a steady pour and a solid drink.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older after Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and two people looking to purchase firearms sued Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's decision that age-based requirements for purchase do not fall under the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a "safe harbor" exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. In both cases, the person must be making the purchase while on duty and is "serving in conformance with the policies" of their respective agency. Supreme Court Declines To Examine Appeals Over Maryland, Rhode Island Gun Control Laws "Governor Polis is committed to making Colorado one of the ten safest states, and common-sense laws encourage responsible gun ownership and keep people safe. For decades in Colorado, you had to be 21 to purchase a handgun, per federal law. The requirement to be 21 was expanded to rifles and shotguns with the signing of SB23-169, and Governor Polis is glad to see the court affirm that Colorado's common sense law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Governor Polis is confident this law has and will help keep Coloradans and our communities safe," Polis' Communications Director Conor Cahill said in a statement to Fox News Digital. Brimmer acknowledged that Adrian Pineda and Matthew Newkirk — the two individuals under 21 who sued Polis together with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — are part of "the people" as written in the Second Amendment. However, he referred to the 10th Circuit's decision, saying it had resolved the case back in 2023, according to Courthouse News Service (CNS). Read On The Fox News App Debate Over Whether To Ban Handgun Sales To Teens Could Soon Head To The Supreme Court The decision in Colorado comes in contrast to one issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 in which justices determined that New York issued unconstitutional requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Then-President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said that SCOTUS had "chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens." "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all," Biden said in a statement at the time. He went on to reaffirm his commitment to reducing gun violence and making communities safer. Brimmer is also going against a decision made by the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which struck down a federal restriction banning the sale of firearms to anyone below the age of 21. That court held that those aged 18 to 20 are protected under the Second Amendment, according to The Trace, an organization of journalists who report on gun violence in the U.S. "The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Illinois, Delaware and Vermont have raised the age for purchasing firearms, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. While some states have limited the age restrictions to handgun purchases, others have applied the restriction to any kind of article source: Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
