Monday, December 26, 2005

Your, Weasel...

Letters from Anton (aka, Gavin), to actor Chris Tucker, his then girlfriend Azja Pryor, and Tucker's child (nicknamed Boo-Boo):

“Hi, Azja. I am sending you a picture of us so when we are not with you, you can see us. I love you, Azja. Your little guy, Gavin Arvizo.”

“Chris, this is a picture for you to remember us always and when you are far away from us you can see us. I love you, Chris. See you soon, big bro. Your little bro, Gavin Arvizo.”

“Hi, Boo-Boo. This is your big brother. Now you can see us all the time. I love you, Boo-Boo, and I miss you. Your big brother, Gavin Arvizo.”

The Arvizos bombard people with loving letters, cards and pictures of themselves, weasel their way into people's lives, and lie to get money and gifts.

Anyone with money, is family to the Arvizos.


Blogger pyt in nyc said... sweet...(throws up)hum... karma tastes bitter. you know what, that probably wouldn't have happened if it wasn't so noticible that these kids were being coached.

6:13 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

Lots of people think it's true...

8:00 PM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

Why did Jacko take the Fifth in previous court cases when he was asked about the molestation charges. What did he have to hide?


8:02 PM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

(Just wanted the whole address to show.)

8:39 PM  
Blogger LIARvizo said...

Michael never took the 5th!! hahahahahaha He never was charged with any crime before!!!
Get the facts straight please!

9:23 PM  
Blogger LIARvizo said...

Actually the one who took the 5th amendment was the mother of the young man who accused him!!

She decided not to incriminate herself with admissions related to alleged welfare fraud charges which have been brought against her since then in Los Angeles!

She is said to have accepted close to $20,000 of undue welfare money to have perjured herself while she was living at her fiancé's now husnband a major in the US army who earns close to $8,000 a month!

She also claimed to be poor while she had gotten a settlement from JC Penny in 2001 after she falsely accused their guards of beating them and sexually molesting her in a full parking lot!!!

By the way the adresses you provided don't work, I owuld be more than glad to teach you some facts, but then again, I guess you're not willing to learn so why bother!

Being anti Jackson is one thing but at least give your reasons!

2:50 AM  
Blogger KC said...

Every con-artist has a modus-operandi. This is just one of the Arvizo family's MOs. Make everybody their daddy/brother/sister/piggybank.

LOL! @ anti-jacko. What 5th are you talking about? It was mama grifter. hater. Haha!

5:14 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

Wacko took the Fifth in another court case (the wrongful dismissal case) when he was asked about the molestation charges. What did he have to hide?

8:30 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

"Hater," kc? Grow up.

8:31 AM  
Blogger losal23 said...

b/c under the terms of the confidentiality agreement, he's not allowed to talk about that case and it probably had nothing to do w/ what he was in court for anyway.

y jumble up a jury's mind when they're there for a failure of payment or breaking of contract not alleged abuse?

9:44 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

Equally so, why should "Janet Jackson" have had to talk about the Penney's case when Michael Jackson was the defendant? The charges in that case were molestation, false imprisonment, etc. against Michael Jackson.

When "Janet Jackson" is a defendant in some perjury trial (and I would love to see Penney's get her), then let's hear all about it.

10:01 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Anton Jackson said...
Wow, now MJ took the 5th? Are they confusing Janet with MJ? Because she is the only one who took the 5th on the welfare fraud stuff. lol You can come and hate all you want, the facts will remain the same. Actually, Michael was never questioned about molestation in other cases. MJ has taken the stand in three civil cases, the one in Mexico about the songs some guy claimed he's stoled, the one in Santa Monica totally unrelated to molestation, it was about a concert and one taped civil thing he did in London about Marc Shaffel. Also, I am not sure you can take the 5th on a civil case. There are many variations of the 5th on a civil case. Nonetheless, a child molestation case SHOULD NOT BE TRIED in a civil court, but a criminal court. Of course, Evan Chandler, Janet Arvizo and Jason Francia all wanted civil cases, I wonder why? Some of you know as much about law as you know about Mr. Jackson. Hate has made you change basic lawful and civil rules. lol And anybody that knows anything about good lawyering, would know if your client is going to a criminal case and if he is going to asked about his case, it would be totally stupid for that person NOT TO TAKE THE 5TH. Just like Janet did on the case. She took the 5th on a criminal matter. Nonetheless, Michael has never been questioned about molestation on the stand. So you're trippin'. lol If you're saying he is, please provide the case where he was questioned.

10:26 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

Wacko took the Fifth during the wrongful dismissal case brought against him, where he "won" $1.5 million or so in damages.

10:30 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

"Anti-Jacko Crowd said...
Wacko took the Fifth in another court case (the wrongful dismissal case) when he was asked about the molestation charges. What did he have to hide?"

Michael Jackson and his lawyers would have to be STUPID to even allow him to talk about something he was being falsely accused at the time. Anything he said could've been USED against him in a criminal case, that never happened, because Evan Chandler decided to SUE Michael Jackson instead of cooperating with the police. Yes, Michael Jackson didn't offer a settlement, he was SUED 1st by Chandler, and then settlement happened, after the Judge in the civil case refused to STOP THE CIVIL CASE and make it possible for the Chandlers to sue MJ AFTER A CRIMINAL TRIAL. Yes, if you know so much about Michael Jackson and his cases, how come you don't know his lawyers wanted the civil case to be stopped, in order to force The Chandlers into a criminal case. However, the Chandlers wanted none of that. I wonder why? Why wouldn't they want the person who molested their child in prison? They could've gotten both, prison and money, but they chose money. Nothing to do with greed I am sure.

ps. Are you part of the Anti-David Arvizo crowd? Cause he was accused of molesting one of the Arvizos by the Arvizos as well. Are you part of that crowd too? lol

10:32 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

I'm against ALL child molestation.

Regarding the 1993 case, it all would have been over before it began if some adult male didn't need to have a child in his bed with him.

Want to solve a problem? Go to the source.

10:40 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Please, do you visit any of the boards where over a million children accused priest of molestation in American states like Massachusetts, or do you know anything about the fact the easiest accusation to make and the hardest to defend is child molestation? Do you visit any of the priest's boards? Those priests that were accused of molestation? Have you read any of those cases? And have you read of the cases that turn out to be false? Do you know that only 10% of child molestation accusations turn out to be true? Do you know about the Dale Akiki case in California? Are you an anti-Arvizo crowd? or Anti-priest crowd? Or you just here because the only molestation "victims" you care about are the ones who were supposely "abused" by a famous person? If so, how come you're not at Woody Allen's boards? Or R. Kelly? Or even Elvis Presley, as Priscilla Presley admitted she sucked Elvis' dick at the tender age of 14. How come you're not at Kelsey Grammer's boards? He was caught on tape with two under-age girls, or Rob Lowe, who in the 80s got caught fucking a little girl on tape. How come you're at Gary Glitter's boards? How nice would this sound anti-glitter crowd?

10:50 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

I meant how come you're not at Gary Glitter's boards? Because you're obviously not there.

11:01 AM  
Blogger invincible said...

The wrongful dismissal case was a CIVIL case, and we all know that Sneddon had a hard-on for Michael since 1993, was looking for anything to pounce on him, and use against him, and would have manipulated Michael's words to his advantage in the future, as he did with the items seized from Neverland. No one's life was on the line. The trial of Michael Jackson was a CRIMINAL trial, and Michael's life was on the line, he was looking at 20 years in prison, so for Janet Arvizo to be given the right to take the fifth, is despicable. She made accusations against Michael, and her credibility was an issue, therefore the defense should have had the right to question her about her criminal ways, but, typical of Smellville, he ruled in favor of Sneddon, and allowed cavewoman Janet Arvizo to take the fifth....luckily, though, she was exposed by the defense, anyway, and she couldn't keep her mouth shut, and she acted like an imbecile, so she was a fantastic witness for the defense.

11:19 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

"Or even Elvis Presley, as Priscilla Presley admitted she sucked Elvis' dick at the tender age of 14."


Hey, are you going to start up a "BUSH KILLED 30,000 SOLDIERS" blog next? LOLOL

11:20 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

"If so, how come you're not at Woody Allen's boards? Or R. Kelly? Or even Elvis Presley, as Priscilla Presley admitted she sucked Elvis' dick at the tender age of 14. How come you're not at Kelsey Grammer's boards? He was caught on tape with two under-age girls, or Rob Lowe, who in the 80s got caught fucking a little girl on tape. How come you're at Gary Glitter's boards? How nice would this sound anti-glitter crowd?"

Point them all out, if you please. Just don't get mad that some of us wonder about Wacko's "affinity" (ahem) for prepubescent boys.

11:22 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

How come you don't wonder about others? That's our question? It does not get you as interested as the rest? Others who are proven child molesters, proven and still WONDERING the streets. When you start caring about other cases the same way you care about this case, I may not giggle at your commentary, for now, your comments are invalid. And is too bad you didn't end up at the jury? It just irks you that THE JURY KNEW EVERYTHING YOU think you know about Michael Jackson, the alleged "affinity" for boys, and they still found him NOT guilty. This is not about MOLESTATION for you, this is about a particular obsession with Michael Jackson.

11:34 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

Well, here goes the Jacko fan with the diversion tactics again. "He's making fun of Michael and may be right! Oh NO! We better change the subject! Michael's a saint and would never hurt a child! He's sweet and the most loving man on the face of the earth!"

Gee, I wasn't aware that it was so illegal to discuss only Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson blog. Who knew?

11:47 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Michael Jackson is not a saint, he however, is not a child molester. lol and you can believe he is tho, it is your right to be misinformed. I've answered every one of your "concerns." You have not answered many of the holes, I've pointed out about the cases, so if anything, it is you who keeps diverting to other subjects. As if what I say matter anyway! You will still believe WHATEVER YOU WANT about the cases. And that my friend it is your right. I don't care.

12:04 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

I want to add, unlike Louise Palanker who does not allow commentary on her blog, other than "how great the Arvizos" are, I do allow commentary on the blog. If anything, it seems like it is Palanker who has godly feelings for her subjects. I do not fear anybody coming here and pointing out whatever they feel is their facts, I will point out my facts as well. It does not bother some MJ fans, in fact, many Michael Jackson fans welcome debates. So bring it on anytime you want. All I ask from my members those who support the blog and those who come here because they think they will close is to keep the profanity at the door.

12:10 PM  
Blogger losal23 said...

y aren't U at their boards? send me the links, i'll go there and speak my peace.

my point is no other celeb gets the same treatment when something like this happens. if they did, i wouldn't be as upset and appalled.

prissy never said she did anything w/ elvis until they were married but it's hard to believe that when they were living together while she was a minor.

i don't watch fraiser and never have.

rob lowe had a sex-tape controversy. i never heard that she was underage. if she was, y wasn't he charged and convicted?

gary glitter is a proven pedo. caught twice and nothing stops people from singing his songs at sport games.

y all the hate on mike? if all accused are created equal, yourname should be anti-jacko-kelly-glitter-lowe-elvis-lowe crowd.

it isn't b/c u only choose to chastize jackson for lies.

read the transcripts IN FULL. direct and cross and then tellme what u think

12:24 PM  
Blogger invincible said...

"Diversion" is the haters' name of the game. Every time someone refers to the degenerate behavior of the degenerates who falsely accused Michael Jackson (factual information), the haters respond with, 'everyone knows he's a pedophile' (pathetic argument), pretty much like Sneezy W(h)eezy who refuses to acknowledge that the Arvizos duped her.

12:26 PM  
Blogger losal23 said...

oh wheezy knows she got duped but in her mind, $20K is nothing to all the publicity she got.

let's c if she'll try to bring back to life a career that never left the pathetic larceny factory.

they used each other. wheezy's the only one who got benefit from this trial

12:32 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

The fact she trashed this family without any mercy when she thought she wasn't been recorded says how much she really cares for them.

2:24 PM  
Blogger LIARvizo said...

hahahahaha at taking the 5th in a wrongful termination case which is a civil case!!!

Dumbest thing I've ever heard!!!! You sure you're an anti-jacko crowd?? More like anti-smartness crowd!!!

Find me one article that ever alleges MJ did take the 5th and then we can talk... If MJ has ever taken the 5th it would be all over the place!!!! Dumbass!!!

As for Janet taking the 5th it directly related to her credibility and her ability to scam people and the Government and her perjuring herself!!!!

You're an ass!!!! Go back to the Court TV lessageboard with the dumbasses and the loosers of your kind!!

1:44 AM  
Blogger LIARvizo said...

By the way how can MJ take the 5th he didn't even testify at that trial....??

1:46 AM  
Blogger KC said...

Anti-Jacko Crowd said...
"Hater," kc? Grow up.

Your username had me confused at first but yes, hater. LOL! So now Jackson is a pedophile because he took the 5th in another court case? That's it? Can you at least try giving us a specific evidence from the trial that says MJ is a pedophile? Just one, don't want to make it too hard for you. :)

5:18 AM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

this is where you got it wrong anti-jacko, this is not a "we love michael" blog, this is a "we hate ignorants(like you)" blog.
we don't think michael is a saint but we sure as hell belive the arvizos are full of sh!t.

9:46 AM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

by the way michael couldn't have pleaded the fith, HE NEVER TESTIFIED!!!!

9:47 AM  
Blogger KC said...

Once again, ask a hater just one specific evidence and everything goes quiet...

2:03 PM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...


5:19 PM  
Blogger losal23 said...

mike has testified three times in his life.

avram, the mexico dep, and in london w/ the schaffelcase.

when did he plead the fifth?

8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

haha anti-jacko *cough coward* crowd had been searching for years and decided to remain silent as no evidence was found?

If anti-jacko isn't the perfect example of an ignorant prick then what is.

7:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Blog Top Sites