Thursday, December 29, 2005

Coincidence of the day!!



Larry Feldman $erved as civil attorney for both The Chandler$ and the Arvizo$.




Stan Katz $erved as psychologist for both the Chandler$ and the Arvizo$.



**Did you know in both cases the families ran to civil attorneys, Evan Chandler ran to two, and Arvizo ran to more than two. Logical action when you find out your child was molested!

**Did you know that both the Chandlers and the Arvizos obtained the same civil attorney Larry Feldman in their road to ju$tice against the man they claim molested their poor boys.


**Did you know that both the Chandlers and the Arvizos never called the police in their road to ju$tice against the man they claim molested their poor boys.

**Did you know it was a third party who called the police in both cases.


**Did you know in court it was revealed Stan Katz was to receive a percentage of any profit made by Larry Feldman in suing Michael Jackson.


1. And do you know of any families who would've ran to civil lawyers if they found out their child was molested?

2. Do you know of any families who would've never call the police if their child was molested instead called a civil lawyer?


Because the concidence of the day is that the only three families who ever accused Michael Jackson of molestation took the time to hire civil lawyers, but never took the time to call the police.


Are you a parent? Who would you run to?

50 Comments:

Blogger maryanne said...

Hello. I heard that you're posting the Michael Jackson trial transcripts here. A bunch of us were really excited about reading them. We tried to follow the trial but found it hard to do while at work. Imagine our disappointment when we got here and saw that your blog is nothing more than satire. Your artwork is lovely and your overall design is very nice but we wanted the real transcripts. Your version of the transcripts is very funny but we want to read the REAL thing! Where can we find the real ones? Thanks!

11:09 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Please...actually...lol those are the official transcripts, you can also find those at the Santa Barbara website and you will be DISSAPOINTED to find that they're the same TRANSCRIPTS. LOL don't be afraid, go ahead go to the Santa Barbara website and get those and compared EVERY WORD to the ones I've provided. And then cry yourself to sleep! lol Prove we've tampered with the transcripts! lol I think Anton and his buddies really want to come here and pretend the transcripts have been TAMPERED with because they know if his friends had the balls to read the transcripts, they would not trust The Arvizos!

11:36 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

I want to add:


You can find the trancripts here:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/transcripts.php

The site above will refered ya to this one:


www.exemplaris.com


Can anybody prove to me we're tampering with the transcripts? YOU CAN'T prove it because is not true, and if you GET THE TRANSCRIPTS from the official WEBSITE you will see NOBODY HAS tampered anything. The thing is that some people can't explain the transcripts and the information that PROVES OUR POINT: The Arvizos are CON-ARTIST!

11:44 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

Maryanne, one thing you have to understand about Jacko fans is that they're very defensive and quite obsessed with him. It's funny that a blog is started 5 months after a high-profile trial ends. I have to wonder whether or not "Anton" and his fellow sycophants are still trying to convince themselves that their idol is truly pure and free of malice.

It's also strange that Anton's obsessions also run towards a teenage boy. Anyone would have to question that, especially since two defense witnesses got on the stand and essentially proclaimed the father to be the family grifter/con artist. But they keep missing that little point.

Just something to consider, along with the "need" for adults to share their beds with teen/preteen children who should be too old to be frightened by "boogeymen."

12:35 PM  
Blogger maryanne said...

I'm very sorry! We just figured that the transcripts here were also satire since your blog has that disclaimer. I'm sure you can see why we would think this. I'm certainly not accusing you of tampering with anything. Thank you for telling me where we can find all the transcripts. Your rudeness tells me I must have offended you by asking questions. I apologize.

12:41 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Sure, I love visitors from my hometown Los Alamitos. LOL G-boy can go ahead and lie to his friends about the transcripts, it does not change the fact they're 100% factual. It can be easily proven, but they do not dare go to the Santa Barbara site. lol


Anti-Jacko,
I see you still here trying to stop "child molesters..." lol I am sure you would call the cops and not Larry Feldman...right. LMAO

12:41 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:44 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Well, Maryanne, we've been accused by some people of tampering with the stuff, a couple of weeks ago. So of course we're like WTF. I don't know if you're concerns are real or not. In our view, most people that come to the blog are here to attack us and Mr. Jackson. So perhaps that's where the "attitude" comes from. However, if you're concerns are real, then I've already provided you with the information, if they're not real, then what can I say? Join in. We do not mind haters. We're like debate and factual information exchange. If I had issues with haters, I would block commentary.

12:46 PM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

"Anti-Jacko,
I see you still here trying to stop "child molesters..." lol I am sure you would call the cops and not Larry Feldman...right. LMAO"

Where else am I supposed to be? Can you provide links to all other blogs and boards about pedophiles?

But you see, my presence here makes comebacks easy for you. If I post here only, you can accuse me of being "obsessed" with Michael Jackson. If I post on other pedophile blogs, you can accuse me of being "obsessed" with pedophiles. If I post all over the place, you can claim I have an "addiction" to the Internet.

You know what that is for you? An easy way to try to remove dissenting opinions. You claim you welcome them and the ensuing debates, but you really want everyone here to agree with you. That's why you claim I'm a "hater."

But what drew me here is a spammer fan of yours, "rlty4me" from the Yahoo boards. This link text will be broken, but it's the only way to show the whole thing here:

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138446&tid=
afpafpentertainmentusmusic
peoplejackson&sid=37138446&mid=56

I figure I can get under his skin as well by posting contrary opinions here. It's a fun exercise for me for now, though to be honest, I'll probably forget about it soon enough.

12:54 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

And guess what? I still think you do not really give a crap about molested children. lol

1:32 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Forgot to add: Moreover, I still think you're a hater! lol You give yourself away! Look at your name honey, you're a hater not a concerned citizen. You could give three shits about real molested children.

1:35 PM  
Blogger KC said...

We think MJ is pure?? LOL! But we do think the Arvizos are bungling con-artists.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

How many MJ websites are called MJ IS PURE? or MJ IS PERFECT? LMAO One thing is for sure all the haters would call the cops if they thought their child was really molested and not Larry Feldman and they know it! lol

2:13 PM  
Blogger Tabloid Junkie said...

Hello. I heard that you're posting the Michael Jackson trial transcripts here. A bunch of us were really excited about reading them. We tried to follow the trial but found it hard to do while at work. Imagine our disappointment when we got here and saw that your blog is nothing more than satire. Your artwork is lovely and your overall design is very nice but we wanted the real transcripts. Your version of the transcripts is very funny but we want to read the REAL thing! Where can we find the real ones? Thanks!
---------------------

No they are real

2:16 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

I had to vi$it a million CIVIL lawyer$ before i could go to uncle $$$$$$$$$$$$neddon to $see if my $tory was fool proof

2:25 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

Obviou$ly it wa$nt whoop$ $orry Daddy Michael

2:34 PM  
Blogger KC said...

Only a fool like Tom Sneddon would say that your ridiculou$ $tory was fool-proof.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:42 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

know but hi$ bu$ine$$ card wa$ $lipped under my door $o it wa hard to turn down

2:43 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

LMAO

2:48 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

Dont laugh at your mother

3:17 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Mom, what the rules of the house again?

3:33 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:39 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

To steal as much as possible, NOT to hide things in plant pots, NEVER answer the door to anyone who is ONLY holding a chicken and to sleep with that rabbit called Michael

3:42 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Got ya!

3:51 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

I hope so, i dont want to be shot in the foot again with your ball barings gun

3:54 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

MOM stop telling people that story!

4:03 PM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

you guys freakin' funny.

5:16 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Mom is 6:30 time for your medicine!

5:31 PM  
Blogger Unbreakable J said...

LMAO!!!
JanUt! what the hell are you doing wasting your time on the internet!

don't you have a new scam to work on? just don't blow it like last time! and how ever tempting it might be to you, do not, and I repeat, DO NOT say anything about hot air balloons!!!
I know you seem them floating everywhere in your head with all the pretty colors, but still, DO NOT mention them and you should be fine.

5:40 PM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

shouldn't anton be helping his brother on his quest to count all the stairs in the world?

7:29 PM  
Blogger mj_vindication said...

hello, I just wanted to thank you all for this blog. You are only spreading the truth about the Arvizos. I think you should also start educating ppl on the Chandler case as well. :) It was such bad script writing as the Arvizo's was.

7:55 PM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

"I think you should also start educating ppl on the Chandler case as well. :) "

Especially the part about Jordie's descriptions corroborating with the police photos. That's good stuff!

Why is a 13-year-old boy seeing such things?

8:41 PM  
Blogger maryanne said...

Thank you for directing me to the transcripts. The site is not as easy as your blog to naviagate. I also find it easier to read words on a black background. I have been reading the transcripts you posted here and find them interesting! I wish you had the space to post them all. Maybe in installments or something? Someone said something about the 1993 case. I would love to read more about that one because there wasn't a great deal about it in the media. thanks again for all your info and I'll be checking back now and then.

8:55 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

The 1993 case never went to court, however, the settlement was leaked during the 2003 case. Go read the settlement is very interesting. Go to smoking gun website and it will make you wonder what kind of parent would sign such thing. We have all the official transcripts, including the testimony of the witnesses under the prosecution (we've also been accused of being one sided! bull shit!) We got everything. I advise you to read the testimony under BOTH the prosecution and the defense. And then tell me what you think of the case.

9:05 PM  
Blogger maryanne said...

It'll probably take me until next summer to read the complete transcripts but I'm game :)

I will check out the Smoking Gun, too.

I know it's impossible to post all the transcripts here but it would be really cool if you guys could, like start at the beginning of the trial and discuss the more important testimony and if you thought that person was telling the truth or if they were lying and why. You miss a lot of the background info when reading the transcripts cold. You know the case inside and out. Will you share? I haven't drawn any conclusions about the trial because I just could not follow it at the time. I'd really like to hear what you all think because I know you'll leave out the media spin.

9:37 PM  
Blogger Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson said...

I could have sworn someone was peeking at me through a telescope then!!!

12:17 AM  
Blogger KC said...

Anti-Jacko Crowd said... {Especially the part about Jordie's descriptions corroborating with the police photos. That's good stuff!
Why is a 13-year-old boy seeing such things?}

What? Jordan's/Evan's drawing of a hut? The only thing it corroborated was that Jordan watches smurf cartoons. Or maybe Evan's peepee looks like a hut.

Reminder to the silly hater: It's almost 2006, time to renew your tabloid and SBDA newsletter subscriptions.

6:14 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

It corraborrated Michael Jackson had a penis. LMAO Evan and Jordan were also genius enough to say "He has vitiligo on his penis.." No shit Sherlock! Does he have vitiligo on his arms too? LOL



Maryanne,


That's a good idea. I'll look into that.

6:36 AM  
Blogger losal23 said...

the NYP said the description didn't match.

so unless we're gonna take the word of jim thomas, mr. i have numerous settlements b/cof my conduct, i'd believe the newspaper.

u'll also be able to observe through motions that MICHAEL JACKSON DID NOT PAY OUT ANY MONEY. it was all through his insurance company.

they initiated talks of a settlement and that's how it happened.

8:48 AM  
Blogger invincible said...

Brainless said - "Especially the part about Jordie's descriptions corroborating with the police photos."

The part where, even though many rolls of photos were taken of Michael Jackson's body, the one photo that would have supposedly proven to be a match, wasn't taken. LOL. How convenient for Sham Sneddon. Gullible twits!!

4:37 PM  
Blogger losal23 said...

didja know the description wasn't given till AFTER the body warrant was carried out?

all that drama and they still couldn't get it right!

5:22 PM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

^^^^^^^^
amazing! and still the media claims the description fit perfectly...please, anybody could have drawn that.

9:40 AM  
Blogger HIStory94 said...

^^^ You're right it I can draw a picture of a penis too a head shaft and testicles there a Perfect match! The Media and Sneddon are a joke!

12:35 PM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

well start drawing, baby. i'll give you a pencil and a piece of paper and then you can sue a guy for molesting you.

5:12 PM  
Anonymous Wacko Jacko is a child molester said...

Did you finally give on this nonsense? Or are you in prison getting what Jacko should be receiving? LOL

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my god you are so right about the descripition. Not only they didn't get photos of the penis but the boy said MJ was circumsized while in fact he wasn't. And the boy got legal emantipation from his parents at the age of 16 (because of the lies that they made him say) and while the boy was giving his interview to the physiatrist he said that he never felt scared by MJ or threatened. Not the behavior of a molested child believe me.

8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Especially the part about Jordie's descriptions corroborating with the police photos. That's good stuff!

Why is a 13-year-old boy seeing such things?"

LOL you idiot! If the photos had matched the descrition Sneddon would have arrested MJ right then and there!
He went to Neverland with an arrest warrant and told MJ that if he doesn't cooperate he would be arrested.
So he cooperated and he was NOT arrested. What does that tell you? That Sneddon got what he wanted?

The Chandlers knew that MJ had vitiligo they knew his skin was splotchy. Everyone knew that after MJ talked about it on Oprah in Feb 1993.
Moreover Evan Chandler saw MJ's buttocks when drugged him in May. So he knew how his skin looked there.
They also knew that he was not a hairy guy so to assume that his pubic hair was short was a no-brainer.
But Chandler said nothing else about MJ's body!
Anyone could have given that type of superficial "description" about MJ's genitalia based on publicly known facts.
But to know whether he was circumcised or how big his penis was someone really had to see the real thing.
And Chandler said nothing about size while he got one important detail totally wrong: he said MJ was circumcised when in fact MJ was NOT circumcised.
If he indeed had seen MJ naked , if he had indeed mastrubated him about 10 times as he claimed in his interview with Dr. Garner
he should have known that MJ had a foreskin as the foreskin moved during mastrubation.
Chandler is Jewish, he knew very well how a circumcised penis looked and felt. No way he wouldn't have noticed the difference.

He also should have known
- size of the penis, size of the scrotum, penis and scrotum ratio, skin around genitalia, shape of the area covered with pubic hair,
skin on the legs

and he said absolutely nothing about any of those things!

It's also very telling that it was not the doctor who made the determination whether it was a match or not, Dr. Strict told FOX news that he was TOLD
it was a match so he himself never saw the photos and the "description". It's only Sneddon who saw both the photos and the "description".
Why him? Why not an independent authority?
Because Sneddon knew very well that it was not a match he simply was not willing to admit it because that would have killed his wet dream: to destory MJ no matter what.
He actually tried to find out why MJ suddenly had a foreskin! They questioned MJ's mother whether MJ did anything to his body so that the description and the photos would not match. Why ask that if it was a match?

And why did Tom Sneddon's 2005 declaration contradict the Chandler book regarding what Jordan supposedly drew?
Sneddon only mentioned one dark blemish on the right side of the penis while the Chandler book talks about numerous markings and it took two hours for Jordan to get it right!
So which one?
Of course there was more than one dark spot on Mj's penis, that's the case with every vitiligo patient, you can look for pictures on the net.
It's just that the Chandlers thought they had nothing to lose if it's not match they will simply blame it on the fact that with vitiligo pigmentation can come and go randomly.


Keep in mind that the other doctor present during the strip search, Arnold Klein said that the Chandler case was a HOAX and he sure as hell knew how
MJ's body looked and knew what Sneddon told about the "description."

In any case regardless of the pigmentation the fact that Chandler didn't know MJ had an intact foreskin alone proves that he never saw him naked,
never mastrubated him, which makes their whole story a big fat lie.

2:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anti-Jacko Crowd,

That you are obssessed with MJ is not in question. Your name tells it all.
You can have the contrary opinion that the Earth is flat it won't change the fact that the Earth is not flat.
Similarly, none of your opinion will change the facts of this case.
The Arvizos are serial false accuser serial pejurer grifters who were not abducted, not falsely imprisoned, not kidnapped,
not molested by the two Germans, Mark Schaffel, Frank Cascio, Vinnie Amen, Michael Jackson just like Janet Arvizo was not molested by the JC Penny guards
her nipples were not twisted 25 times and no, she did not see the white tongue of the devil.
All of that crap, just like the rest of their crazy story was the product of her schizo imagination and Sneddon's creative and rotten mind.
Whenever some evidence emerged which proved the Arvizos liars Sneddon simply changed the story.
Initially there was no conpiracy, no abduction, no extortion just molestation and giving alcohol.
After they discovered the Miller and the Moshlehi tapes suddenly they came up with the whole abduction nonsense.
Of course there were receipts and countless witness testimony which made that conspiracy-abduction charge look utterly ridiculous but Sneddon and the Arvizos had to explain why the Arvizos still kept praising MJ if they had already been molested.

Your assertion that witnesses said David Arvizo was the con artist is a strawman.
The whole fucked up family was a pack of con artist: the mother the father the two boys the sister, everyone.
It's just the way those lowlives operated. They were always looking for easy money whether it was George Lopez, Chris Tucker, Michael Jackson or
the government for that matter when Janet Arvizo committed welfare fraud.

There is a reason why Janet Arvizo went to Larry Feldman, why Feldman told Larry King that the woman was wacko and the whole thing was about money.
There is a reason why Gavin Arvizo changed the number of "molestations" from 7 to 5 to 2.
The dates of the "molestation" also changed. First it was before Feb 20 then only after Feb 20.
When MJ supposedly showed them porn magazines
The magazine Star Arvizo said MJ showed him wasn't even published when the Arvizos were in Neverland.
What MJ did when he supposedly walked in that room naked also changed depending on who told the story.
Gavin also lied about never talking to Jay Leno because he knew if he told the truth it would support the defense's side that they targetted celebs and Janet coached the boys how to fool them.
Most of all what prove that Gavin was a big fat liar is what he said about MJ's skin.
He claimed that he saw him fully naked but when TM asked him about the brown patches on MJ's skin Gavin replied
I didn't know about patched I just ASSUMED that he was fully white.

In reality MJ was never fully white, read the autopsy report even when he died he still had brown patches.
If Gavin had indeed seen MJ naked he would have told TM that he KNEW he was NOT fully white because he saw him instead of
saying that he ASSUMED he was fully white.

He is a fucking liar, perjurer, false accuser piece of shit. Stop worshipping him.


2:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes MJ had pure intentions with kids particularly sick kids. That has been stated by DOZENS of kids and their parents who
unlike Chandler or Arvizo didn't want his money and didn't have mentally ill parents like Evan Chandler or Janet Arvizo.

All these kids have been unequivocal that MJ was innocent. Should we just ignore their words and condemn MJ just because two rotten families exploited him in the worst possible ways?
Listen to these kids (now adults). They will tell you who MJ really was:

Brett Barnes, Sean Lennon, Omar Batthi, Mark Ronson, Kelly Parker, Corey Feldman, Michael Jacobshagen, Derek Emerson, Ryan Folsey, Bobby Newt, Mac Culkin, Kirean Culkin, Dakota Culkin, Quinn Culkin, Bryton McClure, Dave Dave, Emmanuel Lewis, Alexandra Martin, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis, Billy Ramirez, Karlee Barnes, Simone Jackson, Rashida Jones, Kidada Jones, Michael Gibb, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ahmad Etabad, Perly and Morly Qi Zhen, Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, Marie Tourelle, Tracy Dyer, Harriet Lester, Amy Agajanian, David Agajanian, JC Agajanian, Sage Galesi, Lala Romero, Nisha Kataria, Roman Barett, Natalia Barrett, Brock Goldstein, Rhonda Ross, Chudney Ross, Nicole Grierson, Damon Stein, Megan Stein, Amanda Porter, Pudence Brando, Richard Matsura, Soleil Moon Frye , Ryan White, Austin Brown, Anthony Jackson, Taj Jackson, Taryll Jackson, Donte Jackson, Randy Jackson Jr, Mason van Valin, Bianca van Valin, Brian Romero, Bobbi Kristina Brown, Andrea White, Mallory Cyr, Deja Riley, Malika Chopra, Stephen Gibb, Andrea Patel, Brandon Adams,
Tamil and Lana Ramirez, Sky Ferreira, Evan Ross, Laura Chaplin. Shane Brando, Lucy Lester, Jo Jo Elatab, Rodney Allen Rippy

MJ NEVER slept in a bed with Gavin Arvizo and never said that he did. In fact he specifically told Bashir that he never slept in a bed with that bastard.
There was no DNA evidence showing that Arvizo was ever even on that bed on the second floor let alone that he ejaculated on it - which he claimed.
Jesus Salas testified that he only saw the boys on the ground floor never on the second floor.
Both Gavin and Star Arvizo told Bradley Miller that MJ was never alone with either of them.
Both Gavin and Arvizo told the DCFS that they never slept in a bed with MJ.
So what's your point about this whole bed sharing? It never even happened with these particular accusers.

As for the other kids back in the 90s, 4 boys 3 girls and 2 women testified during the trial that they spent nights in MJ's bedroom.
All said that sex had nothing to do with it.
Sean Lennon, Mark Ronson, Brandi Jackson, Nicole Richie, Alison V Smith all slept in MJ's room as kids. ALL said that MJ never did anything wrong.
Frank Cascio who spent more days and nights with MJ as a kid than Chandler and Arvizo put together also wrote that the sleepovers were completely innocent.

From his book:

"The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him criminal. "

So you want everyone to believe that all these kids are liars but the Arvizos and the Chandlers were telling the truth.
Except first you should decide which version of their story you want to be the truth as they kept changing it whenever some new evidence proved

The Chandlers and the Arvizos are rotten to the core. And MJ was a fool to trust them and love them. He was way too good for this world, and certianly way too naive.

2:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Humor 
Blog Top Sites