Home

News

MJEOL BULLET

Frank Dileo Slaps NY Post Quotes - Bullet#328

Tag it:

Written by MJEOL

Wednesday, 26 March 2008

Michael Jackson's former manager apparently doesn't know what the hell two New York Post reporters are talking about when they erroneously claimed he made provocative statements about Jackson recently.

The two blockhead reporters, Stacy Brown and James Fanelli, wrote up a questionable and as yet unsubstantiated article about the finances of the Jackson family.

These two baby-Roger-Friedman-wannabes made allegations about the solvency and employment of members of the Jackson family like it was their business; allegations which won't be repeated here.

However, they apparently messed up when they attributed quotes about Michael Jackson directly to Jackson's former manager from back in the day, Frank Dileo.

They quoted Dileo as saying – and under the context of being a recent statement – that Michael wasn't going to work with the family again and was only concerned about his own legacy.

Dileo, who spoke to EURWeb.com's Lee Baily, says he never made the statement and certainly never made it to Brown or anyone at the New York Post. More from EURWeb's website:

Furthermore, he [Dileo] contacted the article's co-writer, Stacy Brown, to complain. According to Dileo, Brown said the quote was meant to be attributed to Bob Jones.

(see FORMER MIJAC MANAGER IN NY POST STORY BY MISTAKE)

Wow. If that is truly the case and Brown isn't simply trying to cover his a$s, that's one whopper of a mistake seeing as how Dileo was most recently seen supporting Jackson during the 2005 trial. In comparison, Jones was kicked off the Jackson gravy train, got mad and wrote a book of what some say are unsubstantiated and hateful innuendo.

EURWeb’s report continues:

Dileo told EUR: "Stacy Brown called because he wanted me to speak at the University of - somewhere up there [in NY] - and I told him I lived in Nashville and I wasn't able to do it, and that was the end of it. He said, 'How are things going,' I said, 'Fine.' We talked about our business in Nashville.

Next thing DiLeo knows, he's being quoted in the New York Post regarding Michael Jackson.

"And I don’t know what [Brown] got into with Bob Jones or whatever, but I'm not a part of that whole crew," he said. "I never make statements and I don't make any comments. Why they put my name in that and where they got it from – it could've been something from 30 years ago, for all I know."

This isn't the first time Brown has gotten in trouble for telling falsehoods and selling them as news. Some of you readers may remember Brown making ridiculous statements about this website while he was an MSNBC "analyst".

Then, he claimed this site was sponsored by Michael Jackson, regardless of the fact that nobody running this site has ever so much as met Jackson. Nor have I allowed this site’s independent tongue to be controlled by anybody; not even Michael Jackson (see False Info From Brown - MiniBullet#19 ).

This article is also published at ASSOCIATED CONTENT.COM

In what seemed to be a lame attempt to dismiss criticism of his Jackson hit piece for MSNBC back then, Brown proclaimed MJEOL a "sponsored website" -- a complete and total lie -- and never apologized for it.

Brown, once accused of plagiarism^[1] ,threw a hissy-fit because I called him out in another commentary (MiniBullet#18) on some comments about the family he made for MSNBC.

Although Brown has never been a close friend of or part of Michael Jackson's inner circle, he was a public supporter of the Jacksons until he too was kicked to the curb by the Jacksons.

You may also remember back when Brown was writing for the New York Daily News, he again got into boiling hot water when he made unsubstantiated allegations about a book proposal that was supposedly being written by Jermaine Jackson.

In his report, Brown claimed Jermaine had extremely defamatory statements to make about his family and, particularly, Michael.

Jermaine Jackson released a couple of statements through spokespersons at the time. One through spokesperson Angel Howansky saying:

Jermaine is "very angry and upset" at the obvious attempt of Stacy Brown to capitalize on the Jackson Family name once again.

(see Jermaine Jackson Releases Statement Refuting Tabloid Story)

Another statement saying:

"Mr. Brown's alleged false and malicious fabrications about the proposal or the alleged use of a doctored, false, and unauthorized proposal serve only to expose him to potential liability for making untrue statements.

Regardless of Mr. Brown's alleged attempts to sabotage the sale of the manuscript, Jermaine Jackson looks forward to the future publication of his book..."

(see Jermaine Jackson Releases Statement Through Attorney Re: Stacy Brown)

As if that stellar record wasn't enough, Brown was accused by one of the flip-flopping Jackson jurors of plagiarism. Ray Hultman, himself the subject of much criticism for flip-flopping in chase of a book deal, ultimately turned around and sued the person with which he signed a book contract.

In that lawsuit, according to reports from the Santa Barbara News-Press, Hultman said "whoever prepared the book proposal on his behalf included plagiarized portions of a Vanity Fair article by Maureen Orth" (Wacko Ortho)^[2] . Brown is supposedly the one who wrote the book proposal with the plagiarized material.

By the way, of all the people to swipe something from, Maureen Orth definitely should not be one of them. But I digress.

Hultman claimed "both the plagiarized portion of the book proposal and Mr. Brown's statements damaged his reputation and the marketability of any book he could write on the subject” (Santa Barbara News-Press).

Brown was also accused a second time of dishonest and defamatory practices, this time in a non-Jackson related story; a story which would leave the New York Daily News again with egg on it�s face.

In a Fox News (I know, I know) report from Feb 12 2007 titled "Anna Nicole Smith's Baby's 'Dad' Reunites With Daughter", Brown had written a manuscript allegedly on behalf of Anna Nicole Smith�s sister, Donna Hogan, about the late celebrity.

Excerpts of the salacious manuscript were then leaked to the New York Daily News, who published them apparently without checking with Donna Hogan.

It seems Brown didn�t have authorization to write a manuscript for Donna Hogan. In fact, he had never even interviewed her. Woops!

His manuscript was rejected for publication, the report says.

Not only that, but Donna Hogan decried the "inaccuracies and false statements" written by Brown in the manuscript.

This most recent dustup with attributing comments to Dileo is only another notable incident in a string of questionable incidences involving Brown and the Jacksons.

In my opinion, why anyone would readily accept anything Brown has to say with reference to the Jacksons without some form of corroborating material is beyond me. And I’m talking about REAL corroborating material and not just the parroted speculations of someone else.

No matter where Brown�s quotes about the Jackson family came from, it is at best highly irresponsible for them to be printed and spread without any independent supporting evidence.

But since when has the NY Post cared all that much about making sure to only report factual information about the Jacksons anyway?

Footnotes:

Comments

Add New

friedmanenemy

|2008-03-26 14:40:30

This is great. We need more of this 360 degree reporting. Gone were the days
when reporters can throw stones in anonymity. If they want to be famous at other
famous people's expenses, they'd better be ready to become victim of the very
crime they commit against other people. In the future, I can see where fans can
also reward whistleblowers who expose the likes of Brown, Friedman, etc.

Reply | Quote