out of the box1 wrote:

---

Just wondering why nobody is mentioning the fact that these children had nothing to do with their father for years. Mr O'malley was his brother and took very good care of him. Almost on a daily basis Pat O'malley found time to chech in on his brother to make sure he was clean, sober and ok, What nerve people have to talk such lies about such a good guy, You people should be ashmed of yourselves

---

I appreciate where you're coming from. Every family has some kind of conflicting issues, but at times of death, conflicting issues can find themselves in conflict with the law. Or, in the alternative, situated concurrently with an application of the law in terms of conduct and disposition of matters at hand. 

This is a political site.  Pat is a politician who ran for a position where he holds himself out to be trusted by the public in a school district with a $100-million+ plus budget.  If he wasn't a public official, he wouldn't be mentioned here.

Feelings at a time of death very often override good judgment. It happens all the time.  In fact, death can raise feelings to the surface that had been concealed, or otherwise disguised, for years/decades.

Pat is clearlyan idividualundeveloped of maturity. Or, he's evil to the core. This death revealed that, which he should use to his benefit. At the minimum, he should have learned the difference between a decision and a mistake. The former is when you act with full information in hand, the latter is when you don't.  Pat made some decisions and mistakes in this matter, which is why he's subject to this condemnation. It's totally justified.

Decision 1.  He unfortunately discovered his brother dead. When he did he a.) immediately called a lawyer and found out the right way to proceed considering his brother had adult children; or b.) proceeded ignorant of what the law required at the moment.  If (a.), he ignored good legal advice to his detriment. If (b.), he's learned a hard lesson.

Decision 2.He buried his brother without notice to the deceased's adult children. When he did that, he passed the point of no return. Screwed. Not just politically, but legally. No matter what the relations were between child[ren] and deceased parent, the children had static rights at law. He pissed all over them. If my guess is right, they're about to piss back. See invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion. And, he may not alone, the funeral director may have situated himself poorly, as well as Atty. Frank Brazil.

Decision 3. He opened the probate of the estate under a false docket number. He used a docket number of another dead person whose estate was finalized in 2008, [08-0-551], one in which Atty. Frank Brazil was the attorney, who was the attorney Pat was using instantly. Pat got that number from Brazil. They both knew it was a false [fraudulent] number, which is why Brazil is also situated poorly. [See invasion of privacy, i.e., complicity]

Decision 4. The false docket number was discovered when Amber O'Malley properly submitted a counter-petition to act as admin to the estate. In preparation of said counter-petition, she used the same docket number, which was proper procedure. The Register of Wills gave notice that the decedent's name at 08-00551 was not Paul T. O'Malley, which resulted in Amber O'Malley starting from scratch with a new docket number.  The Register of Wills lined out 08-00551 and hand wrote the new and correct docket number, 35-2011-88, above it.

Pat was properly served with it that way on Jan. 27, 2011, so he immediately knew he had been caught with filing under a false number. What did he do to immediately cure that? Nothing. He should have properly withdrawn his petition at 08-00551 and refiled at 35-2011-88, or just withdrew it and left it at that.  Instead, he kept his petition alive for a scheduled disposition on Feb. 14, 2011 in front of Judge Harhut, forcing Amber O'Malley to have to prepare and submit an Answer to it, which Answer has been posted here. He also let the Court believe it was still going to argued on Feb. 14th. It wasn't until Amber O'Malley physically appeared in Court before Harhut, handed the Court and Brazil a copy of the Answer, that Brazil announced that Pat would walk away. Pat O'Malley didn't appear in Court, only Atty. John Brazil did. That's another strike against him, by the way. If you start a way against a 21 year-old woman, at least show up to face her if she's going to. 

Why was John Brazil even in Court if Pat's intention was to walk away? Brazil could have withdrawn on Pat's behalf anytime and gave notice to all parties and the cout. I'll tell you. It was because if Amber didn't show up, Brazil would have still played it out under the false number and allowed Pat to be named admin of the estate. Pat's petition at 08-00551 should have been immediately withdrawn upon service of Amber O'Malley's petition, because that's when they knew they were caught. Why wasn't it?

Granted, it can be hard to submit to the requirements of the law at times of death for a lot of people when familial conflicts might guide decisions. It happens all the time, but public officials aren't like a lot of people. They're people in positions of public trust. They have higher standards of conduct to live by and greater expectations to fulfill, like it or not, painful or not.

To his detriment, Pat's filing of a petition under a false number, and then allowing it to play out right up to the last possible minute demonstrated a course of misconduct that was malicous, deliberate, intentional and ill-willed in nature, intended to harm others. I believe he'll likely see that language in a federally filed complaint.  And if he doesn't, he's damed lucky.