Matt Connarton Unleashed: Don Henley legal drama

But there is a drama in the music world. Is there never not drama

in the music world? Well, you know there are certain It's funny if

I were to I didn't even know about this until he brought it to my

attention this morning. But if I were to say to you, who are

some of the bands off the top of your head, who are some of

the bands if I if I mentioned if I say the word drama, who

are some of the the legendary bands that have had the most drama happen within

them? Kiss? Okay, kiss comes to mind, right, yep,

yep. And I mentioned Fleetwood Mac a few moments ago. Yeah, yep,

yep, yep. That's another good one. And of course has another

band that has had Motley Oh, lots of drama there yet. We've talked

about that on the show. Lots of drama there. There's a whole book

about it called The Dirt about all the Motley Crue drama. Metallica some drama

there. They have a great documentary which Eric reviewed out Journey one week on

the show that uh, some kind of monster about Metallica. Journey. Yep,

they've had some legal drive. I don't even think they talked about last

couple. I know they share the stage, but don't actually speak to each

other. Jonathan Kane. I think they talked about their lawyers or something bizarre

like that. Jonathan Kane and Neil Sean. Yeah, I don't think they

actually speak to each other. They just the play, which I've always thought

that that's gonna be so weird, like being in a band with someone and

not even speaking to them. I remember seeing a documentary once about the Beach

Boys, and there was a period where the band had essentially split, and

this was like at their commercial peak, the band had essentially split into two

factions. One was the Mike Love faction and the other was the Brian Wilson

faction. And they would actually enter the stage from opposite sides because they didn't

want to. Like, how does a band even function that way? It's

always been fascinating to me, like how do you how do you write a

set list? Maybe you have one person who's in charge of writing a set

list. You can't all have input. If you can't even have a conversation,

go through the lawyers, you know, they just pass it around and

agree to know, we're not going to do this after that, or maybe

the two. All of those dramas, though, are within bands that we've

brought up. This is not a drama within the band, well there is,

so of course we're talking about the Eagles, and the Eagles so much

drama historically in that band that when they did their reunion in the mid nineties

they called it Hell Freeze Is Over. I think it was ninety four and

they did the Health Freezes Over tour, and then of course that wasn't the

end of the drama. There ended up being more drama with Don Felder getting

fired from the band and so forth, so it never truly ends. Also,

some intense personalities and Don Henley, about whom this latest but of drama

seems to center around, known for having a particularly intense personality. By the

way, are you an Eagles fan, because Eagles I always did like the

Eagles, Me too. But they're one of those bands that people who don't

like, well, they're kind of like Kiss in this sense, you know

how, you know how with Kiss, like people who don't like Kiss really

don't like Kiss, like really hate them. Like. I've never met anyone

who simply doesn't like Kiss, they like, like, I've only met people

who either really like kiss or really hate kiss. I feel like the Eagles

is like that too, Like people who don't like the Eagles really hate the

Eagles. You've seen the Big Lebowski, right, yes, yeah, you

know, and there's a whole thing in there about how much he hates the

Eagles. Yeah, I personally I love the Eagles. I'm a dudast priest.

What do you mean? Oh, yes, right, Sorry, that

took me a second. Took me a second. Still. I used to

doing this in the morning. My brain isn't but it's different. This is

not within the band. Yeah. Oh, by the way, we have

to say hello to Chris Porri or our friend Chrispy, who's a Facebook live

chat Hello, buddy, he's he's isn't he supposed to be coming on the

show at some point? He will? Yes? Good, good, good,

when he's ready. I'm bringing them in. Last time we saw him

was at an event at the Hop knot that's true. That's true. So

yeah, there's some weird legal drama involving Don Henley and uh this is uh

this story is from Billboard dot com. Uh. And again I didn't know

this was going on until because apparently this has been going on for a little

while. But there's a new wrinkle. But I this had completely gotten past

me until you brought it to my attention this morning. I wouldn't call it

a wrinkle. I'd call it a bit of a creator. Yeah, so,

uh, Eagles. This is the article Eagles Stolen Notes trial ends suddenly

after judge says Don Henley manipulated prosecutors. Yes, I we got to spill

the T. Yeah, spill the t. That is what the young people

say, yes, it says. The abrupt end came after prosecutors revealed the

newly disclosed evidence from Henley cast out on whether the Eagles notes had been stolen

in the first place. Now, and I'm just getting familiar with this story.

We're just getting familiar with this story, uh as well, because Jenny

didn't know it. You didn't know until this morning that any of this was

going on either, right, No, that's not true. I actually knew

about the case being dropped, but I didn't know why. And now that

I know the why, it's like, really, yeah, you can't.

You can't trust that dastardly done Henley. I like you see the judge it

monished them. I like the Eagles, but I've never trusted them. See,

and everybody goes to Hotel California, and I was already not that I

don't like Hotel California. But my go to song was always Desperado. Yeah,

I never liked a Desperado. I liked that, and uh, Hotel

California. I liked it when I was a kid, But after the seven

millionth time of hearing it, I was over it. I can't tell you

why is my favorite Eagle song? Why can't you tell me? I can't

tell you why. That's my favorite Eagles song? What song? I can't

tell you why? Like won't you tell me? I can't tell you why.

That's not nice. I want to know. I know I can't tell

you why, But that is my favorite Eagle song. So I can't tell

you why. Manhattan prosecutors made the stunning decision Wednesday, March sixth to drop

a criminal case against three men accused of trying to sell stolen notes linked to

the eagles nineteen seventy six album Hotel California, with a judge saying Don Henley

had manipulated prosecutors. At a hearing Wednesday, a New York judge dismissed the

charges after prosecutors alerted him that newly uncovered evidence cast out on whether Henley's notes

had been stolen in the first place. The court defense advanced by Glenn Horowitz,

Craig in INCRTI, and Edward Kazinski. The disclosures came midway through a

closely watched criminal trial against the three men, in which Henley and longtime Eagles

manager Irving Azoff, who's a legend in the music industry or Irving as Off,

had already testified. The proceedings had already run more than two weeks and

had been expected to keep going until at least next week. The sudden reversal

was sparked by Henley producing new evidence that had previously had been previously withheld under

attorney client privilege. The new materials touched on whether a journalist tired in the

nineteen seventies to write a book about the Eagles, Ed Sanders, had legitimately

come into possession of Henley's notes. At a hearing in open court on Wednesday,

Justice Curtis Farber sharply criticized Henley and Azof's conduct. Quote, it is

now clear that both witnesses and their lawyers used the privilege to obfuscate and hide

information that they believed would be damaging to their position that the lyric sheets were

stolen unquote. The judge said he was also troubled that prosecutors had been quote

manipulated into bringing the charges in question why they had not more thoroughly vetted the

accusations and the evidence, But he praised them for dropping the case once new

evidence had come to light. Now, by the way, is it possible

that there was no manipulation here, but the prosecutors were merely big fans of

the Eagles now or perhaps Don Henley's solo work. Uh uh, you know,

Building the Perfect Beasts is a great album, and that in case,

they wouldn't have dropped the case, they would keep going. Because I have

to tell you, like, if I were, if I were some sort

of prosecutor and Gene Simmons came to me and said, Hey, I got

to I gotta I want to press charges, I'd be like, whatever you

want to do, dude, let's do it. Stop it, Gene Simmons

of Kiss of Kiss, Maybe you'll call in one of these mornings, stop

it one of these morning. No. See, now I'm mixing this is

an interesting situation because it's not often that you see prosecutors pulling their own case

and going, oh, no, we're not going to prosecute anymore. Yeah,

So you know, it's pretty damning. And this is information that Henley

and his attorneys kept from prosecutors, kept from the court, and that information

was very damning to them, which is why the judge was admonishing them.

You're not supposed to do that, not supposed to hide stuff. Oo.

They use the attorney client privilege as their foundation to keep these documents private,

but apparently something happened that I don't know if it forced their hand to whatever,

that they had to give these documents over and the prosecutors are going,

oh, wait a minute here, If this is right, nobody ever sold

anything, it says you're In a statement to Billboard following Wednesday's hearing, Henley's

attorney Dan Petrocelli said, quote, the attorney client privilege is a foundational guardrail

in our justice system and rarely, if ever, should you have to forsake

it to prosecute or defend a case. As the victim in this case,

mister Henley has once again been victimized by this unjust outcome. He will pursue

all his rights in the civil courts unquote. The Manhattan DIA's office declined to

comment. Horowitz, a rare book dealer in CRT, a curator at the

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Kazinski, a memorabilia auctioneer, were

all charged in twenty twenty two with conspiracy over accusations that they tried to resell

and hide the origin of the handwritten notes penned by Henley during the creation of

Hotel California. Manhattan DA attorney Alvin Bragg, Ah, we've heard his name

and connection with other cases we won't talk about here. You have said the

trio had quote made up stories about the origin of the documents, and they're

right to possess them so they could turn a profit unquote. But the three

men always maintained that they had done nothing wrong their core argument. Okay,

so now't now we're getting into the heart of the matter. You see what

I did there, Yeah, trying to get down to the heart of the

matter. That's one of my favorite Don Henley songs. See, I'm telling

you, if I were a prosecutor and Don Henley came to me I'd be

like, let's let's get these guys. This is why you shouldn't be one.

That's right. You know, people have liked these rights. I know,

but I'd be more interested in my fandom of Don Henley and the Eagles.

Apparently we see that selfishness in you. I would not have the discipline

to uh not. Uh well you don't have a discipline. We know this

now if Joe Walsh came to be. If Joe Walsh came to be,

I'd be a little bit more suspicious because that song Life's been good. I

never cared for it. Wow. Yeah, that's so if Joe Walsh wanted

to bring charges against somebody, I'd be like, uh no, we're not

doing that, Joe, go get me Don Henley, why you judgemental?

Well, it's uh you know we are talking about legal matters. Oh is

that change your perspective? Yes? So, so their core argument that the

alleged theft Sanders said legally obtained them. This is their core argument Sanders legally

obtained them in the nineteen seventies in the process of writing a never released book

about the Eagles. If the notes were never stolen, the three argued,

how could they be charged with re selling stolen property. Okay, so in

other words, so if I understand this correctly, In other words, if

Don Henley willingly gave the notes here, yeah, take these because you're going

to write this book. Yes, although that means they're not stolen because you

hand them over, and if you never sell them to anybody else, then

how can you be criminally prosecuted for selling stolen property? Is that's what the

charge is. It does seem like it would be unethical though, if maybe

not illegal. But and there's more of this, we'll get to it.

But just as we're going through it, well, but if they tried to

if they tried to sell the documents they had, because the thing is if

somebody So, if somebody gives you something for the purpose of writing a book

and then you never write the book, and then you say, well,

I'm just gonna take these and sell them, that that seems really that that

would be that would be I would think criminal. Well, I don't think

it's I wouldn't think it would be criminal. In other words, if Henley

gave him the documents and said, here these are so you can write your

book book and the book never gets written, but Henley gave that property to

that author or perspective author, and then so he gave that So they're now

the property of the author. If Henley gave them, they gave that the

author. I argue that they are not the profit property of the author.

If the information was given for the expressed purposes that I'm hiring you to write

this book, here are the documentation, and you never give them back,

does it necessarily mean you have the right to sell them. I would say

definitely that that's your argument means to me it would be unethical to try to

sell those documents. Completely unethical, but not necessarily illegal. If Henley gave

If Henley takes his property and said here, I'm giving this to you,

so and that now becomes the property of the author, that may be where

the hang up is. So is it illegal. I wouldn't think it would

be illegal, but I do think it would be highly unethical. That well,

yeah, something something to to be unethical. But necessarily you're hired for

an express purpose and your given documentation for that express purpose. I'm assuming there

would be a contract there that spells out what he's doing, you would think.

But remember this was during the in the process of doing that doesn't mean

you have the right to and there may there may not have been any kind

of a contract. I mean, remember this was during the making of Hotel

California. These guys are all coked up. No no, no no no

no no no no no no, no no no. This is about not

the writing part, but about giving these documents over to a writer who was

hired to write a book. But the book was never published. Right,

That doesn't mean it wasn't written, doesn't mean it wasn't even finished. Right,

could have been totally finished, ready to go to print, and they

pull the plug on it and say we're not going to do that. That's

what he was given these documents, which does are Yeah, even if that

doesn't give him the right to then sell them. I come to you,

you're a cake baker, and I come in with a photograph. I want

this photograph on this cake and it's somebody famous, and I want you to

copy this picture, but I don't want you to do anything else. Do

you have the right to take that picture and then sell it and turn a

profit on it? Isn't that doesn't that picture still belong to me. I've

only given it to you for the purpose of making that picture on that cake.

But see then we get into and again, by the way, neither

of us are legal experts. Feel free to chime in, So if anyone

is yeah, six O three two five six seven, But I would think

so in the example that you just gave again, it would be completely unethical

for someone under those circumstances to then take that property and try to sell it.

But is that is that a criminal matter? Is that really a criminal

matter or is it a civil matter? At that point, it's a criminal

matter if you took something that didn't belong to you and you then sold it,

which is what this case was about, taking those those documents and then

selling them to turn a profit. But that's not what happens, yea.

In this instance, they did have it, but they never actually sold it

to anyone. So you can't be convicted of selling stolen property if you never

actually sold it. But they tried, right, I don't know if they

tried or not, because isn't that the whole point they tried to Because if

you try, I mean, you know, you know, trying but not

succeeding doesn't doesn't help you. I mean, you can well just because you,

Oh you can. You can try to rob a bank, but that's

without selling. That's still the you. No, that's different. You can't.

You can't put robbing a bank and conflate that into what I'm just I'm

just saying. I'm just saying, if you try, if you try to

do something illegal but you don't succeed, that doesn't get you off the hook

and anything. I'm just saying, you can't get prosecuted for selling stolen property

if you never sold the stolen property. Well, but you could get tempting.

Well, yeah, that's that's my point. But in this but they

but eh, but they specifically point out that the reason part of the reason

why these charges were dropped was because the notes were never stolen. They were

handed to the writer and then they never How could they be Okay, oh,

maybe I'm wrong about this now that I'm looking at it and thinking about

it. If the notes were never stolen, then if they did sell them,

they wouldn't be stealing, they wouldn't be selling stolen property. They would

simply be stolen property that was within there. Well that was my point,

But that's starting to think you're right and I'm wrong on this. So that

to me is not a criminal matter, but it but it could be a

civil But a civil matter if Henley says, wait a minute, you're trying

to sell this property that I gave to you for the express purpose of writing

a book that never came out, and now you're trying to sell that,

that would be a civil matter. Right. Henley could then say, well,

I'm going to assue you because you're trying to sell property that I that

I get specific purpose, and now you're trying to profit off of that,

right. M Yeah. See, this is why I'm thinking you're pro I

think you're right. I think that because they never they were handed over willingly,

they were never stolen, right, And then if it's just happening in

nineteen seventy that those notes were actually handed over, we're now sitting here in

twenty twenty four. Yeah, I mean how far How long do you have

something in your possession before it becomes yours? Isn't possession nine tenths of the

law anyway, So maybe it's been so long he had it. If he

did sell it, is it even criminal or is it even unethical if he's

had it in nineteen seventy Yeah, Well, there is that. I mean,

yeah, I think it's I think it's unethical to do that regardless of

time. But that but the mentioning of time does bring up something else that

I'm thinking about too, is and it's it's a similar thought to uh,

excuse me, it's a similar thought who when we were talking about the months

ago the Darryl Hall versus John Oates lawsuit, and we were talking about how,

you know, these guys are in their mid to late seventies, is

this what you know? Is this how they want to You know, Don

Henley is seventy six years old. I mean if I were seventy six years

old and already had more money than I could ever spend, I don't know

if I'd want to be spending time in court trying to sue somebody out of

making money off of something I had done. I mean, I guess maybe

it's a matter of pride or principle, but at seventy six, I you

know, just this, Don Henley, relax. This is a nefarious side

in the in this as well, when you look at what the judge had

said a review, he said, quote a review of these newly discosed materials

has demonstrated a highlight. Mister Henley and mister asov use of the privilege to

shield themselves from a thorough and complete cross examination was said by Justin Farmer.

So in other words, because they withheld this information, the defense doesn't didn't

get to cross examine them on it, didn't even get to know about it.

So they're shielding themselves by keeping this close to the test and not sharing

the information when legally they had the legal what's the world I'm looking for requirement

to disclose this information. They had no right to keep it secret under the

guise of client attorney privilege, which is what they were doing. So the

judges can olderly admonishing them for doing that because not only did they prevent important

information from being released, but they also prevented the defense from being able to

face their accuser. Yeah, it says here again. This is from Billboard.

The trial kicked off last month with Inc's attorney telling the judge the prosecutors

had distorted the history to charge innocent men and the DA's office would be apologizing

at the end of this case. Henley later testified that he had not willingly

given away the no, saying they were quote something very personal, very private,

unquote. So it sounds to me like Kenley and asof and their attorneys

are trying to make it sound like these notes were stolen, when actually he

sounds like he gave it to them and forgot and never retrieved them. Well,

again, it's it's an indelicate way of putting it, but but I

do think it's valid. These guys again, the Eagles during the making of

Hotel California. Who knows what the hell they did or can remember correctly or

not. They were all cooked up. I'm not And and again it's it's

an indelicate way of putting it, but it's just true. You know what

I mean? You think there's something in those papers that he doesn't want out

there. No, I'm just saying. I'm just saying, who knows what?

Who knows what conversations were had between Don Henley and back at nineteen and

with this and this guy, I mean, who knows. You don't even

realize that he gave it to the writer with it at the time, right,

That's that's why I get that. I get that. But no matter

what the situation was in that moment, it sounds like he just left the

paperwork with the guy. Right, They never went back to the writer and

said give me back my notes. Who knows? Who knows, just kind

of shoved it all to him, write me this book, and then somewhere

along the line, dude goes, I got your book, and he goes,

never mind. Yeah, that sounds like exactly what happened, because it

never was actually published, it says here. On Wednesday's hearing, Justice Curtis

said that Henley had recently handed over more than six thousand new pages of emails

and other disclosures that contained new information about how Sanders came to own the notes.

Such jarringly late disclosures violated Horowitz in CRTI and Kazinski's constitutional rights. The

judge said, yeah, six thousand, Come on, it's not like it's

a single six thousand documents. Wow, that's an awful lot to be keeping

secret. Yeah, especially where obviously it was information that should have been provided

under the disclosure of our rules, it says. An a statement to Billboard,

Horowitz's attorney, Jonathan back Bach said, quote, we are glad the

DA's office made the right decision and finally dropped this case. It never should

have been brought mister Horowitz looks forward to carrying on with his important work.

Unquote well regardless. I mean again, I'm not any kind of a legal

expert, just as a layman. It sounds to me like this this was,

if anything, a civil case, not a criminal one. Oh,

these guys could have been facing real jail time. Yeah. Keeping that paperwork

is literally put three people's lives in jeopardy. That's that's pretty hard, man,

that's pretty bad. Yeah. So you got to have a lot of

hate in you hat to want to ruin people's lives like that. I wonder

what's in that book? What's in that never released book? H Yes,

we'll probably never know. I was looking to see if there's any kind of

other update. But again, it's like, you know, this is the

really reason this just happened. Just this past week was the case officially dismissed.

And it's really it's also very telling when you look at it, because

it's not the judge who dismissed the case. It's the prosecutors themselves who went

to the judge and said, we need to pull back on this, we

need to get rid of the charges. We're not going to prosecute now.

I want to go back. I can't imagine prosecutor is liking to drop criminal

charges too much, so this must have been interesting. Although Alvin bragg got

kind of has a handsful. I do want to think if you want to

go back to uh By the way, do you think Don Henley pays his

lawyers? Probably I might have him confused with somebody else. Anyway. I

don't think he gets away with not paying lawyers. I think there's only special

class for that. Just for context, I do want to go back to

there's a story here. This is from February twentieth, and this might add

some context to what we're looking at now, which is the latest update.

This is from the AP News. This is from February twentieth, but this

kind of explains the foundation of the trial. Story titled Welcome to the Hotel

California case the trial over handwritten lyrics to an Eagles classic. It says here

in the mid seventies, Eagles were working on a spooky, cryptic news song.

On a lined yellow pad, Don Henley, with input from band co

founder Glen Fry, jotted thoughts about a dark desert highway and a lovely place

with a luxurious surface. And ominous undertones and something on ice, perhaps caviare

or tatinger? Is that any say that? Or pink Champagne? The song

Hotel California became one of rock's most indelible singles, and nearly half century later,

those handwritten pages of lyrics in the making have become the center of an

unusual criminal trial set to open on Wednesday. So again, remember this is

from February twentieth rare book dealer Glenn Horowitz, former Rock and Roll Hall of

Famer curator Craig Nciarti I finally figured out how to say his name, thank

you, and memorabilia seller Edward Kazinski are charged with conspiring to own and try

to sell manuscripts of Hotel California and other Eagles hits without the right to do

so. The three have pleaded not guilty, and their lawyers have said the

men committed no crime with the papers, which they acquired via a writer who'd

worked with the Eagles. But the man okay, so so they these guys

are not the writer. None of these guys are the writer of the book.

They're claiming they got these from the writer. So we should clarify that,

because I wasn't clear on that myself. I didn't. I wasn't clear

on that either. So none of these three guys are the author of the

book. They're they're they're all saying that they got they they came into possession

of the notes from the writer of the book. So they have to prove

that the writer didn't steal them. Yeah, all right, now we're getting

Clara. Here we go. But it says but the Manhattan DIA's office says

the defendants connived to obscure the document's disputed ownership despite knowing that Henley said the

pages were stolen. Clashes over valuable collectibles abound, but criminal trials like this

are rare. Many fights are resolved in private, in lawsuits or with agreement

surchter in the items, like I was saying, like it being a civil

matter, not a criminal one. Travis McDade, a University of Illinois law

professor who studies rare document disputes, said, quote, if you can avoid

a prosecution by handing over the thing, most people just hand it over unquote.

Of course, the case of the Eagles Manuscripts is distinctive in other ways

too. The prosecutors, star witnesses, indeed that Henley is expected to testify

between Eagles tour stops. The non jury trial could offer a peek into the

band's creative process and life in the fast lane of the seventies of seventies stardom.

At Issue are over eighty pages of draft lyrics from the blockbuster nineteen seventy

six Hotel California album, including words to the chart topping Grammy winning title cut.

It features one of classic rock's most recognizable riffs, best known solos,

and most oft quoted arguably over quoted lines you can check out any time you

like, but you can never leave. Henley has said the song is about

the dark underbelly of the American dream. It's still streamed over two hundred and

twenty million times and got one hundred and thirty six thousand radio spins last year

in the US alone. According to the entertainment data company Luminant, the Hotel

California album has sold twenty six million copies nationwide over the years, bested only

as bested only by an Eagle's Greatest Hits disc in Michael Jackson's Thriller. The

pages also include lyrics from songs including Life in the fast Lane, and New

Kid in Town. Eagles manager Irving Azoff has called the documents irreplaceable pieces of

musical history. Horrorwitz INCRTI, and Kazi are charged with conspiracy to possess stolen

property and various other offenses. They're not charged with actually stealing documents, nor

is anyone else, but prosecutors will still have to establish that the documents were

stolen. The defense maintains that's not true, and I think that's where the

rub is. How do you prove that the documents were stolen? Much turns

on the Eagles interactions with Okay, this is the context I was looking for.

Much turns on the Eagles interactions with Ed Sanders, a writer who also

co founded the nineteen sixties counterculture rock band The Fogs. Fugs got to be

careful how I say that on the air He worked in the I don't even

want to pronounce it the way I think it's supposed to be pronounced, because

again, we're on FM radio. He worked in the late seventies and early

eighties on an authorized Eagles biography that was never published. Sanders is not charged

in the case. A phone message seeking comment was left for him. He

sold the pages to horror Witz, who then sold them to Incrti and Kazinski.

Okay, so the writer ed Sanders. He took those documents and he

sold them to Horowitz, one of the three guys who was charged, who

then sold them to the other two guys who are charged. Horowitz has handled

huge rare book and archive deals, and he's been entangled in some ownership spats

before, one involved papers linked to Gone with the Wind author Margaret Mitchell.

That was settled Inciarti worked on notable exhibitions for the Cleveland based Rock and Roll

Hall I'm sorry, Rock Hall of Fame, not the Rock and Roll Hall

of Fame, the Rock Hall of Fame. Kazinsky has been a principal and

Gotta have It collectibles known for auctioning celebrities personal possessions, so personal that Madonna

unsuccessfully sued to try to stop a sale that included her LATEX briefs. If

only we'd note about that when we did the Madonna segment. Yes, those

were auctioned off. Apparently, Uh, Henry, well, you know,

he know what anyone wait, listen, it's Madonna. She's don't care what

anybody's use son to Madonna. It's Madonna, though you don't know that.

Yes, I do not Madonna. She does not Madonna. Everybody does.

How dare you? She is named after the mother of our Lord. I

don't think so there is an R E M song about that. I think

everybody fus. Henley told a grand jury that he never gave the biographer of

the lyrics, according to court filings from Kazinski's lawyers, but defense lawyers have

signaled that they planned to probe Henley's memory of the time. M we believe

that mister Anley voluntarily provided the lyrics to mister Sanders, unquote, attorney Scott

Edelman said in court last week. Now, by the way, so Henley's

not claiming that these three guys stole anything. He's claiming that the author,

ed Sanders, is the one who stole. And they have possession of a

stolen property. Well, possessing stolen property is a crime. And what were

they trying to sell it? So were they trying to sell them? Yeah?

Apparently yes, so stolen property. So they're trying to sell them.

So now that we have more context, now I'm starting to flip back to

saying maybe this I can see why, I can see why this was considered

a criminal case and not civil because if there is alleged theft involved, right,

but he was hiding six thousand ages of documentation that apparently refutes that and

insists that they willingly gave the documents to the writer intending on having a book

about them. Yeah, and then squished the book and never took back their

documents. Yeah. I mean charges were probably against these guys until twenty twenty

two. For all we know. There could be something in those emails about,

you know, a conversation they had at Studio fifty four. I don't

know they were emails at Studio fifty four. No, what I'm saying,

maybe referencing a conversation they add at Studio fifty four about the lyrics or something

that Don Henley now can't remember something previous documents from like long ago, that

they maybe from starting the book talk. Because back in the day when poly

C and I used to hang out at Studio fifty four with Share and all

that, I think I remember seeing Don Hemley there. That's a little bit

inside. But if you're a if you're a WMNH devote you know, reference

please Sanders sold Horowitz in two thousand and five that while working on the Eagles

book, he was sent whatever papers he wanted from Henley's home in Malibu,

California. According to the indictment, wait a minute, though, Yeah see,

yeah, what do you mean, Wait a minute? What? So

he says, so he was sent whatever he needed for the book. Basically,

uh huh. If if if I were an author, if I were

working on a book for somebody and they were sending me papers, I wouldn't

just assume, well, these are mine to do whatever I want with.

Correct. But if you've had them in your possession since nineteen seventy, how

long in your possession right until they've become yours and you are able to get

rid of them, right or right? Are you ever able to do that?

Right? That's an interesting conundrum, it says. Then Kazinski's business offered

some pages at auction in twenty twelve. Henley's attorneys came knocking, and Horowitz

and Crdy and Sanders, in varying combinations, began batting around alternate versions of

the manuscript's providence. The indictment says, yeah, interesting, it sounds so,

According to the indictment, they tried to muddy the waters about you know

how these doctors, by the way, But once again though just from Don

Henley's perspective, and I understand pride and principle and all that, but this

seventy six year old man, who's already extremely wealthy, if he gets if

he stops this from happening, what does he get out of it? Financially?

Nothing? Right? But if somebody else, unless he's looking to regain

regain the control over those papers, get him back and then he can sell

them himself for more money. But he's probably not going to sell him.

He probably just wants him back. How do you know that? Well,

I don't know that, but that's why he's doing the loss in the first

one. But if somebody else can sell him, there might be an Eagles

fan who wants to spend the money. I mean, it's just what diehard

Eagles fan would want to have, right, So at a certain point,

what's it matter? Again, I'm just saying, why does this guy want

to go? Why does Don Henley want to do all that? Now,

by the way, publicity out of it. I do understand why in one

sense, because I do understand why in one sense because he is Don Henley,

and this is consistent with everything that we've heard over the years about him

as a person. In his personality has he always been a loss not necessarily

litigious, but he's known for having a very prickly personality. Oh, I

really don't know much about the man. I just know some of the music.

I mean, I'm a fan of his music. But there have been

some pretty consistently some unpleasant things said about him as a person. He's never

been a nice guy as far as I can tell, just from what people

say about him. I'm trying to think of something nice that someone's ever said

about Don Henley, and nothing leaps to mind. That's terrible as a person.

That's terrible. Yeah, that's just my impression. I don't know,

that's just my impression. It says in one story, Sanders found the pages

discarded in a backstage dressing room. In others, he got them from a

stage assistant or while amassing quote a lot of material related to the Eagles from

different people unquote, And yet another story he obtained them from Glenn Fry an

account that quote would make this go away once and for all unquote, Horrowitz

suggested in twenty seventeen, but then Glenn Frye died the year before Wow twenty

sixteen. One Fried died. Quote. He merely needs gentle handling and reassurance

that he's not getting that he's not going to the can unquote. Horrorwitz emailed

NCRTI during a twenty twelve exchange about getting sanders explanation shaped into a communication to

auctioneers. The indictment says Sanders supplied or signed off on some of the varying

explanations, according to the indictment, and it's unclear what he may have conveyed

verbally, but he apparently rejected at least the dressing room tale. And by

the way, that's something that's that we've heard, you know, like the

Beatles, for example. You know somebody picks up lyrics, handwritten lyrics or

notes left behind in a dressing room or backstage, you know, at a

at a concert or in a recording studio. Just somebody leaves something behind,

somebody else picks it up. Who really owns it? At that point?

You know? Is it stealing? If somebody leaves something behind and it doesn't

look like they care about it and you pick it up, is that is

that theft? I mean it is unethical. I think if you're oh,

yeah, but if in that in that situation. But Kazinski, h,

I'm gonna skip down. This get's pretty in depth. But okay, so

I'm gonna skip down a little bit. But Sotheby's listed the Hotel California song

lyrics in a twenty sixteen auction, but withdrew them after learning the ownership was

in question. Yeah, because Southeby's doesn't want to end up in any kind

of legal He's he apparently does go after everything. I'm looking at some notations

from someone else who's saying you can rarely find any of the Eagles on his

or his solo material on YouTube. When a video of their music gets uploaded,

it's quickly removed. He's strict about not allowing people to take pictures of

videos at Eagle concerts. Yeah. He also doesn't seem to like people who

play his music in public places. Wow. Yeah, Hey, that's his

reputation. That's all consistent with everything that we know about Don Henley. The

worst of the worst examples of him being overprotective include that one time when he

sued because of a hotel in Mexico that had the name Hotel California. He

also sued Deluth Trading Company because of a T shirt containing the words Don Henley

and take it Easy, and even sued a foundation that helps protect Eagles in

America because he felt they were infringing on the band's name. He wasn't happy

about Frank ocean sambling Hotel California and went as far as to call him a

cussword and attack him. Despite his popularity at the time, Eagles shows are

also some of the most expensive ticket wise, Yes, especially for a band

that hasn't released a new single in thirty years. Wow, there was a

I guess the reason this came up. I guess was there was a video

some old commercials that were removed and got copyright strikes issued on YouTube because Henley's

song New York Minute was used for a few seconds in a promo for a

TV show, which probably made up about five percent of the entire video.

Yeah. Yeah, Apparently he's quite quite the protective individual, for lack of

a better term. Yeah, And and you know, that's all fine in

the sense that, look, you should protect your intellectual property and so forth.

But but at a certain point some of it seems a little petty.

You know, yeah, but yeah, I think it's sad really that he

is this protective, because I think it hurts in the long run, like

not having people listening to your music on YouTube? Yeah, what's why not?

Why wouldn't you want your music to stay alive and in the public eye.

Why be that? Like, do you want it to the best way

to face something of ways to keep it out of the public eye. Yeah,

well, I mean then again he may look at it as he never

asked to worry about that really, and neither do the Eagles, because look,

you could probably turn on rock one on one right now and hear an

Eagles song, you know what I mean. Like, because of classic rock,

the classic rock radio format, they never really have to worry about it,

and they'll always be able to charge enormous sums of money for their tours,

and so they do have stuff on YouTube of them. Though, yeah

he must. He probably just go finds one and goes after that one person

and then finds somebody else. Maybe that's how he passes his time. I

think it's sad though, I really do, because I mean I would I

would think that an artist would want their their music to never be forgotten and

to have it be wide and far. But I might be wrong. I

mean I could be wrong in this, I think. But it doesn't sound

like anybody stole anything. It sounds like they turned over stuff for a book

and never took it back. Well who knows, I mean, we don't

know exactly what happened there. And well we know we gave him the stuff

in nineteen seventies, and there's no evidence to prove that he's ever sued or

anything to fight to get documents back. Right, he didn't care about them

until they turned up in somebody else's possession. Yeah, So does that because

you forgot something doesn't make it theft? Right? Who is your responsibility to

retrieve your belongings? It's not the other person's responsibility to bring it to you,

in my opinion. Yeah, I don't know. I'll be curious to

see. So this has been dropped just to kind of put a button on

it. It's been dropped as a criminal matter. But well that doesn't end

it, because he is vowing to sue them civilly. Yeah. Yeah,

So we'll have to stay tuned to see if there's another court case coming up.

Well, that's what you do, right, I mean, if it

doesn't work out criminally, you know, you always have that s yep