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