Forum Post: The Lanzas, just another humble 1%er family?
Posted 11 years ago on Dec. 19, 2012, 6:38 p.m. EST by FawkesNews
(1290)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Nancy Lanza, received $289,800 in alimony this year. It was to continue until December 2023, with slight increases each year for cost of living."
Cost of fucking living increases? You can barely afford to prepare for the zombie apocalypse on such meager alimony; let alone afford new guns or violent games for your kids.
Peter Lanza, tax director for GE. (Not Gino's Electric) Only earning a mere 8,556.00 per week, it would have been impossible for him to pay both alimony and still have any money left over to get his kid some psychiatric help.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22208636/alleged-newtown-killers-mom-got-more-than-250
I wish I could unsee these things, because I now think the Lanza fortune would be a nice donation to the victims families, whether the Lanzas think so or not. Those families are victims of ineptitude, armed paranoia and outright selfish opulence.
She wasn't 'rich' as they say, she had 'disposable' income.
She was comfortable as they say. Not rich at all.
She was rich by any standard
She only had 5 guns: barely prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse.
Real rich people have underground bunkers filled with arsenals, ready for the swarms of Zombies.
I heard 12 guns. What does it matter how many guns she had. 300k per year without working is rich.
underground bunkers ain't cheap but some middle class people have managed to squeeze it out.
You just gotta be crazy enough.
Nancy Lanza is a prime example of opulence gone astray.
At 300K per year she could have afforded the finest life for her children. Instead she chose to collect weapons to protect herself from the Zombie Apocalypse, while her son played Murder Simulators. She was afraid of the masses taking her stuff, the same stuff that her husband had so effectively stolen from the masses while stealing for GE.
There is no excuse for her. She is responsible for the deaths of 20 small children.
I've been doing a little research about this town and I found it really strange that over 10,000 women in Newtown are advertising as babysitters charging between 10 and 20 dollars per hour. The women range between 12 and 70. A 12 year old making 15 dollars per hour for babysitting? Is this the going rate?
Is this a Stepford town?
Do any of those 'babysitters' have ties to the CIA? Mossad?
She didn't know son was zombie either.
Bad prepper. Maybe she thought the Zombie Apocalypse was a parlor game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Preppers
Brutial = parlor game. It could and does happen almost like that. And then there is forms of media working to confuse the social association of zombie and old jesuit term for a person in a somnambulistic trance and diminish what exploiting zombies can do.
http://www.keyt.com/news/local/Zombies-Take-Over-Sunken-Gardens-176123331.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEg2G2Aq56k
Now the critical thinking. Connect the dots. Creepy bizarro. Machiavellian
http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html
http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-if-there-were-a-secret-revision-of-local-cour/ What if there were a secret revision of local court rules preventing development of effective mental health care?
So, let me get this straight, a large group of people dance to song by some dead pedophile. Followed by a weirdo lady with a shitty zombie video.
I add a little critical thinking while reading about a lawsuit to assist families addicted to meth and alcohol, which is reported by a paper that subsequently fires some of it's reporters, who in turn sue the paper over various lunch break disputes and so forth. Soon after, a public defender named in the lawsuit resigns from his job for reasons undisclosed, and he takes a job elsewhere. There follows case information far too involving for me. I am then drawn to a forum post here that describes the removal of justice from the justice system.
What I am asking of you, is a concise layman's interpretation of WTF you mean to imply. Please clarify your point.
All happening in the same place related to our knowledge of the human unconscious.
Did you read any of the legal stuff? I was shocked and referred a couple of paralegals to examining what happens to the suits they prepare for pro se plaintiffs that are effectively denied access to courts by the rule change. What was revealed by that '06 federal lawsuit is that the 9th circuit court of appeals secretly revised its local court rules. That was done to stop a suit, from what we can tell, has no defenses.
I assure you, I will peruse the legal 'stuff' when time allows; but I was able to ascertain the same things you did from what I have gathered. The trouble I have, is that I am unable to connect the 9th circuit revision with the newspaper and the singular lawsuit. I will read as much as I can tolerate of the lawsuit and will be more informed.
I think you insinuate that the connections you have made here are based upon a new technique or treatment for addiction. Am I correct?
The secret revision of 9th circuit court rules is found on the appeals pages, or it starts there.
Any and all new medical treatments are always difficult to implement, even if rigorously studied by legitimate professionals within heavily funded accredited institutions: especially if those treatments do not involve the use of pharmaceuticals. Why would anyone think otherwise?
California Health and Safety Code HS 1370.4 is a separate path. The lawsuit sought enforcement of the state law.
(I disdain permalinks)
Interesting. Apparently this is not new. Why it has not moved into mainstream, is likely based on limited acceptance of hypnotherapy, not a 'secret cabal' within the supreme court: in my opinion. Please consider that Class A drugs have also shown positive results in therapeutic environs; but the difficulties inherent with the distribution of said drugs prevents mainstream use as such. Also please consider that there a millions of people who have overcome the very same conditions without the advantage of any of the above listed 'treatments' and have gone to live incredibly fulfilling lives: regardless of "1370.4. (a)". I truly wish the best for you and yours in times of addiction and I encourage the use of free programs offering recovery.
Listed below are the first 3 Google results for the treatment you have mentioned; which by the way is very intriguing. It may very well be utilized in a future free of the restrictions the present is constrained by.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515970/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109083453.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109083453.htm
"regardless of "1370.4. (a)". What about the secret revs ion of court rules? What about the 10's of thousands that could benefit FT From the specific treatment?
Marijuana has actually experienced many years of study previous to its; legalization as medicinal. In fact Washington and Colorado have legalized it for recreational use. Again, after many years of study, by a wide range of researchers, in an incredible amount of institutions.
Would you like to discuss the treatment that has been opposed so clandestinely?
It treats the unconscious mind directly.
1370.4. (a) Every health care service plan shall provide an external, independent review process to examine the plan's coverage decisions regarding experimental or investigational therapies for individual enrollees who meet all of the following criteria: (1) (A) The enrollee has a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition.
Co plaintiffs had children with severe alcoholism. After we were denied access to courts by a judge that should not have heard the case, under the rules prior to the secret revision, a daughter in-law was found decomposing by a freeway r/w wall, under a bush, dead from alcohol poisoning.
The treatment is basically hypnosis, but by narco induction. Very safe. No2. Used on children at fairly high levels in dentistry on children.
What does the work is the hypnotic script. The words invoke instincts. When the best instincts are used, and used well, integrated into as many aspects of life as possible, the effect can resolve major compulsive patterns. Psychosis is partly a cyclic replay of one or more powerful instincts making a basis invoking powerful instincts in patters that are radical and render a person capable of extreme violence. Cognition can be so impaired that consequence is not consciously considerable.
Therefore the unconscious is contacted, and a pre made, completely cognizable and correct model using positive instincts is delivered for a person to use as an option to operate their waking state mental state with.
She was rich by any standard.
She was not rich. Unfortunately "disposable" got her disposed of. Being rich is a state of Mind, usually relative to where one lives and who one's peers are. She was poor with all of that disposable income if she had to hide her son from her neighbors. She must have felt trapped and yearned to move away from it all.
I disagree. She was rich by the measure of the money/property/assets she had.
The rest of it may make her poor figuratively but that ain't what we're talkin about.
In any event that poverty is now resolved for her.
We go with different definitions of "rich" so it is just fine. I go by how people feel which is more relative, not by how much they own which is more absolute. We have huge number of people in the U.S. whose possessions are the envies of vast swath of the world's population. They are rich by your definition but poor by my definition because they have to keep up with the Joneses.
I don't disagree with the poverty you refer to. The thread was about the $300k annual income she got so obviously My contention is that makes her rich.
I don't disagree with you definition of "how they feel". It justain't what I'm talkin about or what the thread is about.
You do realize that right.?
Yes, it is indeed a huge amount of money for a family of two.
This shooting just happened about a week ago. As things settle down I think more and more people will show some heart for Nancy Lanza and we'll try to understand the difficulties she was having as a parent. Yes, she was rich but her son had disabilities we know nothing about.
I got this from a comment on Huff Post. (I know, HP sucks but this is good)
Asperger's was unheard of when my daughter was first diagnosed with a "Schizoid Disorder" at 8. We went from one specialist to another, she went through months of therapy with a child psychologist as a child who was very withdrawn, had no friends, and we were told she would "outgrow it at puberty". She didn't. We tried for SSI and she was re-diagnosed as having Asperger's. She was denied SSI because they felt there was something she could do to make money. We live in a red state with no public transportation and no real services. Our daughter hates people, is on meds for anxiety and sees a psychiatrist every few months to monitor her meds. If I split with my husband or we moved to another state, she would freak out. Aspies do not like change in their environment. I look at what happened in Newtown and realize that anyone who has a high anxiety level and lack of empathy can snap if their world is turned upside down. I think Adam Lanza not only had high stress levels, but his mother taught him how to shoot his way out of it. I will always feel that availability of guns is a very bad idea. You never know when someone in your family might hit their maximum stress level and go looking for an "out".
Initially I felt horrible for her, until it turned out she was the recipient of a ridiculous alimony settlement and had more than enough resource to contend with her troubled son, yet was unable or unwilling to do so. Additionally, she was the brother of a police 'chief' who was undoubtedly aware of the situation in ways we will never know. To top it off her husband is an incredibly well paid vice president of 'taxes' for General Electric. Ryan Lanza is a representative of Ernst & Young, and surely aiming to follow in his fathers filthy footsteps.
Considering what has become of the United States as a result of corruption at the very levels this family operated at, it became clear to me that these people were the epitome of the selfish overindulgence and skewed belief systems that have caused the demise of so many 'decent' families across the country. It became impossible for me to 'understand their difficulties'.
There are an incredible amount of families, just like the woman in the HP article, that have parented their children well enough so as not to have produced mass murderers. I choose to support and sympathize with their plight instead.
Did the father claim the body of his son yet or is he going to write it off as a deduction for GE as he has it tossed into a landfill? Has General Electric paid enough to keep this from affecting them, or is the press simply going to comp them?
Please disregard my disdain for such negligence contained within such opulent wealth, if you need to. Also please understand that there are innumerable families with the same difficulties that need support from the rest of us because they are "struggling' to make ends meet a midst the very same conditions.
Thank you.
I guess you're right. How did we wind up with so many guns in this country anyway? Politicians and law enforcement must have caved in to the wealthy and let it happen intensionally.
Politicians and law enforcement are loyal to the bankers and criminals, not their fellow citizens. They have more guns than education and will never realize that they are "paid" by the very people they oppress. The repercussions will be massive on the country. What few good ones are left in their ranks need to act soon if there is to be any change for the better.
Shooz has the most practical solution and it's simple. Gun owners should be forced to buy insurance.
On the surface that seems like a good idea but I believe the problems so entrenched in the populace are much harder to solve. Like what about the victims of gun crimes, do they not 'uninsured shooter' insurance?
[Removed]
OK, sure.
Maybe the NRA should seek to outlaw divorce so that parents persist in their role as parents.
At least there could be an assigned police officer to each and every household. To assist in parenting primarily.
By the time you sue the Lanza estate, the gun manufacturers, Novartis (the manufacturers of Fanapt), the psychiatrists who treated Adam, the FDA, etc. etc. etc., you might have enough money to rival the families of 9/11
where is the proof that he was taking Fanapt ?
the rumors and BS on this tragedy seem endless
when will a formal police report become available ?
As soon as 'Uncle Champion' and his pals can edit out the parts where he looked the other way a full and detailed report will be available for you to believe at your leisure.
By the time these families have grieved for their losses Peter Lanza will have saved several million in alimony payments. Should we be happy for him or should he have been hung by then.
He knew that his ex wife was collecting firearms and letting his psycho kid play with them. He cannot feign ignorance. He is no different than the drug companies, the psychiatrists, the gun makers, the FDA and his corrupted inept brother in law.
Wow, what a psychopathic, Nazi, fascist piece of sh*t you are.
Just for that, there will be no fruitcake for you! There is a point to that statement, if you would like to explore it. Why don't you get back with me when you do.
Have you considered that Adam Lanza may have been the "Alpha" in this relationship, which is not unusual in single-head-of-household situations, especially when the single parent tends to be a more liberal minded mother? Have you considered that there might be a reason a father might choose to distance himself?
Have you considered that we really shouldn't be commenting without a priori knowledge?
Are you making excuses for her opulent ineptitude that has cost so many lives?
On the contrary, I find motherhood in our age of enlightenment severely lacking. People have forgotten that the role of parenting is not to placate children.
She was failure of a parent in a plethora of ways. Her brother was a "Police Chief". He is an obvious failure. Who was she to turn to straighten her son out? Garden parties? Gun Ranges? Her corrupted cop brother?
The bottom line is that in the interest of not exposing the lil psycho to 'arbitrary' evaluation, she enabled him and is thus truly responsible for his actions.
I have a sister; I have no right to interfere nor would I ever attempt to. You know this is pretty funny... you're really stretching here to lay this one on the police, huh? Which says a lot about where your mind is - it's the other guy's fault; ok, so, where is the other guy? Is there an authority figure we can hang this on, one of those "establishment" types?
That's not the point at all - as every responsible gun owner knows, children do not have access to our guns (or weapons). It's not a case of "should not" - there is no room for speculation or judgement - it's a simple case of "does not." Guns are not that difficult to secure, especially when you have her resources.
Truthfully, what this is, is inexperience. Those inexperienced have a greater tendency to just leave them lying around the house. This is typical of urban gun owners.
You can easily test my hypothesis with this experiment... "Officer, I am afraid of my unemployed, 20 year old devil worshiping, weapons obsessing son, He refuses to stop playing murder simulators, even though I take him to the 'real gun' shooting range, and I have a house filled to the brim with guns and food, in preparation for the Zombie Apocalypse." See what happens.
You joking right? I'd slap that kid silly. That's exactly my point, parents do not "parent" anymore.
You abuse children frequently, or are you another dirty cop who feels the law is for citizens? because what you just suggested is illegal in every state.
Are you kidding me? This isn't about law, it's about my responsibility to society to raise good children. Sure, I can understand mental illness and behavioral problems but there's no way in hell the above scenario would ever take place in my house. And as a teenager, we're not talking slaps here; we're going at it, winner take all.
And in all fairness, I don't believe too many women are capable of this; I don't believe too many women are capable of dealing with out of control sons; you have to begin building respect when they're young and too many mothers today fail to do this. And there are a lot of pusillanimous fathers too.
You got me to laugh. Thank you.
Parenting is definitely a job for the parents and too often it is handed willingly over to the state, who has no compunction usurping the parents role. That statement in and of itself is the source of many problems here in America. "Going at it, winner take all" is an obvious last resort and when the risk of being prosecuted for violence at home is weighed against the risk of mass murderer from the household, a parents options are indeed limited.
a liberal minded mom with assault rifles? i don't know what kind of liberals they have where you come from but where i am from they take art class and not shooting classes.
I have to agree with your perception in this case. It sure seems to me that a liberal minded , former kindergarten teacher with a mentally challenged son would have more damn sense than to have guns in the house AND take up shooting as a hobby with him. Sounds more like Sarah Palin.
exactly.
So any person that owns a firearm can't be a liberal?
did i say that? no i didn't did i. however, just to be clear i don't see a whole lot of liberals clamoring for gun rights as a matter of fact i don't see any. i see some libertarian types doing so but not the liberals.
I know of at least one liberal who has become a gun enthusiast. My best friend growing up was always quite liberal, but in recent years, has become a gun toting survivalist. Doesn't like hunting or using his gun for any purpose whatsoever, but keeps it around "just in case". Otherwise, I would say his mentality is still quite liberal, although he does identify some liberal issues as being put in place by elites for the purpose of manipulating us.
I think its a good thing for people to be able re-evaluate their ideologies at a later point in life, whether they are liberal, conservative, or what ever. I myself did the same, originally being "far" or "new" left, identifying with issues such as environmentalism, but now being more "old" left and being much more concerned with issues oriented towards economic development, such as financial reform, a national bank, and a New Deal style economic development program.
I'm just like your friend in that I am liberal but I purchased a gun this summer. Unfortunately, I really did have to do this as I'm dealing with a certified psychopath neighbor. I will spare you the details but unfortunately thanks to our corrupt jurisprudence, the man is not behind bars for life and moved in next door and has bullied and attacked me for two years until finally, this summer, he pushed me over the edge and called the cops and bought a gun, a surveillance system and no trespassing signs to place every 20' down our property lines.
I don't hate guns but I hate how too many people view them. For one thing it's become way too trendy to carry a gun - especially the repubs that wear them on their hip around town as if they are VIPs. I hate that people use guns to problem solve when we should be more evolved communicators. Sarah Palin made it really trendy for women to sport guns and hunt and all the cutesy drama surrounding her dysfunctional but very Christian family. I guess my point is that we glorify violent weapons and violent behavior. I'm not like that at all. Ironically, I was a Buddhist so imagine me having to buy a gun and spend hours every week in training? I hate it!!!!!! but I'm in real, not imagined, danger and even the police know this but because there are no laws that keep prior offenders and psychopaths out of neighborhoods, they can live anywhere they choose. The police can't sit in front of my house all day and the neighbors, although have been somewhat supportive, are just as terrified of the man and one neighbor packed up and left the state out of fear. What kind of world is this?
Wow, that's too bad. I think my friend is kind of like you, in that he is a Buddhist, or something like that. However, unlike you, he doesn't have a psychopath living next door, but rather, is afraid of what might happen if there is a complete economic collapse, and people don't have food, or other kinds of disaster scenarios. Good luck with your neighbor.
I don't think I'd be too worried about having a gun for political reasons. There's enough people with guns to help out in that respect. Besides, we are not any force against our military. I hate to say it, but we'd lose. The only plus is that GWB encouraged so many to buy Hummers so maybe we should find us a friend with a Hummer instead of a gun. hahahaha
i think your friend sounds more libertarian to me.
Sounds like it, but I don't think it is the case, will have to ask next time we talk. I say I don't think so, because he is for government programs like a new "New Deal", which libertarians generally oppose, preferring to leave matters of economic development to the market.
he probably thinks fdr caused the great depression after hanging out at the gun club.
No, I don't think so, guns aren't something that he has gotten into for fun, and he's not that easily influenced by others. He is just afraid of what would happen if we had a complete economic collapse.
You're right! don't listen to these gun nut wacko motherfuckers.
Okay. So liberals are trying to destroy the second amendment.. So what part of the constitution is okay? Or is any of it?
how is regulating semi automatic weapons destroying the second amendment? show me where it says you can have semi automatic weapons in your home or on your person.
Nope, not really. It is simply closing loopholes and bringing back the ban on assault weapons and nailing the manufacturers through the Tiahrt Amendment.
And that isn't destroying the second amendment? And you do know that when that so called assault weapons( got news for you: civilians can't own assault weapons) the murder rate with those rifles didn't drop? Or are you more concerned with propaganda?
Nope it is not. http://occupywallst.org/forum/connectcticut-gun-laws-among-the-toughest-in-the-u/#comment-898036
Might as well......the GOP pissed all over the rest of it and you weren't using the second for anything worthwhile anyway.
the founders didn't write it as a penile substitute you know.
Noo... a liberal minded mom who gives into every little whim of the child, who in this case perhaps wants assault rifles and range time (?)
Speculative, entirely speculative... but the fact that a troubled teenager had access to her weapons is a little outside the norm. And you have to wonder how that could have occurred.
I see your point. But then( and this is pure speculation on my part) perhaps other troubled teenagers have had access to weapons and not slaughtered children. Which, if true, would make this whole trashing of the constitution unessessary. But maybe....an opportunity to.....what?
Why don't you stop protecting gun profit at the expense of gun victims.?
I see your point. But then( and this is pure speculation on my part) perhaps other troubled teenagers have had access to weapons and not slaughtered children. Which, if true, would make this whole trashing of the constitution unessessary. But maybe....an opportunity to.....what?
This is a government that is wholly inept; if a violence free society is the goal, then certainly these are the wrong people to spearhead that effort.
I'm a gun owner, a hunter, a sports shooter... but if it were me I'd be seeking some way to a) stop the flow of illegal guns to the streets and b) ensure that legally possessed guns were secure. I would also like accountability; "weapons" in my opinion, should be traceable.
A person with income of 300 thousand a year has both the time and the means to ensure his or her guns are secure. In urban and suburban areas this is obviously a greater concern. So I think if it were me, I'd be trying to address these things. But this government won't.
Like I clearly stated...."I wish I could unsee these things"...
It is hard for me right now to see how the other half lives.