Wednesday, September 4, 2013

O'Malley's In-N-Out Burger Order: Hold The Facts

ALAMEDA | Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley usually avoids the spotlight. But in late July, she stood before the City of Alameda's planning board and voiced opposition to a proposed In-N-Out Burger at a new development slated for construction at the mouth of the Webster Tube. O'Malley, an Alameda resident, didn't find yet another fast-food restaurant on the island distasteful, nor did she protest the industry's low wages or voice environmental concerns about the production of hamburgers for mass consumption. Instead, she asserted that an In-N-Out would bring crime to her neighborhood. And because she had no evidence to back up her claim, her implication seemed clear: She didn't want the type of Oakland residents who might dine at In-N-Out to come to her city...



  1. By MW:

    One of the best ways to keep the crime rate down in a neighborhood, community, or a particular city would be to enact laws that would not allow lawyers, and Nancy O'Malley is a lawyer, in the area.

    In fact some years ago when I had a unit for rent and an application from a lawyer who wanted to rent it, I then wrote up a draft of a rental agreement and then showed it to another lawyer for finetuning, and that lawyer himself, and even though he himself was a lawyer, thought I should think long and hard before agreeing to rent to a lawyer.

    And back in the early 1980's I had a co-worker who had been a landlord for decades, and who owned at least several rental units, tell me abut a married couple, and in which both the husband and wife were lawyers, who had moved into one of his units, and after paying the first month's rent, came up with a new excuse every month not to pay rent for an entire year. He told me they were far and away the worst tenants he ever had.

    He finally got those parasites and scumbags with law licenses to move out by using the only method lawyers understand.

    And my former co-worker's experience with those lawyer deadbeats was even well previous to about 1980, and with the "standards" in the legal profession having gotten even much worse since about 1980, and including since it was about 1980 that the legal profession began to be almost totally taken over by drug addiction.

    NOTE: Lawyers who are drug addicts are even much sleazier in general than other lawyers, and furthermore engage in embezzlement and money laundering like crazy, and including so as to get the money to fund their drug habits.

    And still furthermore in regard to the "standards" of lawyers and some of the reasons we should not allow them in our neighborhoods, we saw how Judge Paul Seaman embezzled at least hundreds of thousands of dollars from an elderly couple, and then Nancy O'Malley, and rather than trying to have Seaman thrown in prison for his crimes, instead decided that a very light slap on the wrist, and with no prison time whatsoever, was more than sufficient punishment for Seaman.

    In conclusion, I think the city of Alameda should pass laws prohibiting: one, lawyers, and such as for instance Nancy O'Malley, from moving in and/or living in the city; and two, any of the types of businesses, and such as certain types of saloons and taverns, that tend to attract lawyers.

    (Lawyers have far and away the highest rates of both alcoholism and drug addiction of any major profession, so therefore reducing the number of "high class" barrooms in a city would considerably reduce the number of those extremely overpaid parasites with law licenses hanging around and infesting the community.)

  2. Lawyer Free Zones. I like it.

  3. By MW:

    As a result of Nancy O'Malley's attempt to keep an In-N-Out Burger from being built in her hometown of Alameda, SINCE SHE THOUGHT IT WOULD ATTRACT OAKLAND RESIDENTS TO HER CITY, AND SHE EVIDENTLY WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT OAKLAND RESIDENTS ARE VERY PRONE TO COMMIT CRIMES, it seems that some people think she is a racist.

    However it is impossible that she could be a racist, since: one, she is a "liberal," and liberals are wonderful, intelligent, fairminded, and very openminded people, and that is why they are liberals and they are not conservatives, and as liberals constantly inform us; and two, she is also a law school graduate, so she is "obviously" a highly "educated," "intelligent," and very "superior" person.

    And how dare any of you ordinary laymen, in other words non lawyers, criticize or insult a lawyer.

    NOTE: I have been at public meetings when this or that Alameda County agency has tried to feed us their standard lies and garbage, and then to "prove" that their hairbrained and outrageous plan, proposal, or sleazy scheme is legal, intelligent, logical, and proper, the County agency then gets its stooge, puppet on a string, and professional pathological liar with a law license to "inform" us that she has examined the issue, and as a lawyer she has found it to be legal and proper, and meaning that therefore her position is that we ordinary laymen should stop objecting to it, since she, and as an "intelligent" and "logical" person trained in the law, has found it to be legal and proper.

    However in reality most of the County's lawyers are nothing more than con men and highly paid pathological liars, and therefore their statements should be taken no more seriously than the statements from the "compliance officers" who worked for Bernard Madoff.