U2 wins legal case over memorabilia

[ramblin rose]

Woo hoo.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0705/u2.html

05 July 2005 11:14

The rock group U2 has won its case against the band's former stylist, Lola Cashman, over the return of memorabilia.

The Dublin Circuit Civil Court ruled that Ms Cashman must return the items in seven days.

Judge Matt Deery said that it was extremely unlikely that a band as successful as U2 would have taken the case if the subject matter was not important to them.

The judge said Ms Cashman's account of being given a number of items by the band was unlikely to have occurred.


U2 had been seeking the return of a Stetson hat, a pair of metal hoop earrings, a pair of black trousers and a green sweatshirt, which were worn by Bono during the 1987 Joshua Tree tour.

The band took the case in 2002 after Ms Cashman attempted to put the items up for auction.

The two-day trial last week heard evidence from Bono, U2 manager, Paul McGuinness, crew members and Ms Cashman.


During the trial, Bono had told the court that there was no way he would have given her the items.

However, Ms Cashman had claimed the items were given to her by Bono following the tour in 1987.

U2, who are due to play a concert in Poland this evening, were not in court to hear the verdict.

 

[LJT]

Well at least thats over, can now be safely consigned to the history bin...i guess it was just basically the band's and their crew's word against hers.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

What about the Polaroids?

Anyway, doesn't she still ahve defamation proceedings against them in London?

 

[LJT]

What about the Polaroids?

Anyway, doesn't she still ahve defamation proceedings against them in London?

Yeh but i think they are dropped now too because she failed in her claim of ownership of the items therefore i don't think the other case can continue...depends what she took the defamation case out on, whether it was the blackmail charge or the band saying she stole the items....

 

[kellyahern]

Yeh but i think they are dropped now too because she failed in her claim of ownership of the items therefore i don't think the other case can continue...depends what she took the defamation case out on, whether it was the blackmail charge or the band saying she stole the items....

Yes, I think the defamation case was "stayed" pending the outcome of this case, and since she lost in this case, she really doesn't have any standing for her own suit.


Anyway, like Rose said,

 

[U2dork]

Ok, everybody point at Lola and in their best Nelson voice say:
Ha! Ha!

 

[unosdostres14]

 

[redkat]

Ok, everybody point at Lola and in their best Nelson voice say:
Ha! Ha!

^
Too funny!

If the boys are happy I'm happy

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

They should've just won the auction themselves. They have enough money for that. I don't know but I think this was wrong in a way.

What did these items mean to her as oppossed to what it could possibly mean to these millionaires that are U2?

I think this was unfair and some sort of money had to be given to the lady for at least finding the items that U2 claimed to be looking for.

 

[chelle00]

^
Too funny!

If the boys are happy I'm happy

ABSOLUTELY!!

 

[youvedonewhat]

Ok, everybody point at Lola and in their best Nelson voice say:
Ha! Ha!

LMFAO!!!!

 

[caragriff]

They should've just won the auction themselves. They have enough money for that. I don't know but I think this was wrong in a way.

What did these items mean to her as oppossed to what it could possibly mean to these millionaires that are U2?

I think this was unfair and some sort of money had to be given to the lady for at least finding the items that U2 claimed to be looking for.

no way.
this lady is classless.
the fact that she wrote a "tell-all" book tattling about intimate personal, physical details of the guys is proof enough for me that she lacks character.
she didn't have much chance in court. once you prove you are unseemly enough to write a tell-all, it is not so hard to portray you as someone who would also rob the band of mementos.
both are signs of a person looking to exploit her "brush with fame."
i'm glad they stood up to her and glad they won.

plus, larry and bono looked hawt in those suits

 

[youvedonewhat]

They should've just won the auction themselves. They have enough money for that. I don't know but I think this was wrong in a way.

What did these items mean to her as oppossed to what it could possibly mean to these millionaires that are U2?

I think this was unfair and some sort of money had to be given to the lady for at least finding the items that U2 claimed to be looking for.

Regarding your first question: Why should U2 'buy' something that is already theirs, even if they are well off? Apart from which, why should they pay this viper hard their earned cash when she's treated them so badly.

Secondly: I think it was the principle that was involved here. You can't give in to ppl who are ripping you off, no matter how small and insignificant the item/s is.

Thirdly: You're well entitled to your opinion and rightly so. My opinion is that I think this woman was out to make as much money out of these items as possible - cashing in on genuine U2 fans. She obviously has no regard for the group or for them as decent people or she'd have asked them if they minded her selling them in the first place. (They might have even agreed if she'd taken this route). After all, they don't appear to be 'miserly people'.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, be it wrong or right.

...going now...before you think I'm.....

 

[u2 warrior]

As an aside, I have a Joshua Tree Tour itinerary that she supposedly gave to a friend. Its definately authentic, but her name isnt in it.

Its actually really cool. Shows where the band stayed on tour, where they stayed when they had days off, times to be here and there, crew set up schedules. Its a nice momento considering I went to 2 shows on that leg. If its really was her's, i am glad she didnt try to sell it off too.

thats the story of the littel blue book,

 

[MsMofoGone]

Here's an interesting thought ...
I wonder how many people will return Lola's book ...
"Inside The Zoo with U2 : My Life With The World's Biggest Rock Band" ...
now that she's built a reputation as a liar and a thief ... since she lost this court battle ...

 

[caragriff]

sadly, i am sure the publicity of this court battle has helped her sell books.

 

[cmb737]

Secondly: I think it was the principle that was involved here. You can't give in to ppl who are ripping you off, no matter how small and insignificant the item/s is.

Quite right. Those that illegally download should take this to heart as well.

 

[MsMofoGone]

Hey caragriff ... Not to me !!
Her book was one book that I never could buy !!
I read a little of it while at a bookstore one day and put it right back on the shelf ...
Absolutely had little truth in it ... alot of stories seemed made up !!

 

[chelle00]

^
Too funny!

If the boys are happy I'm happy

ABSOLUTELY!!

 

[Carmelu2fan]

Here's an interesting thought ...
I wonder how many people will return Lola's book ...
"Inside The Zoo with U2 : My Life With The World's Biggest Rock Band" ...
now that she's built a reputation as a liar and a thief ... since she lost this court battle ...

I was going to get that book to add to my collection , but not Now!!!

 

[MsMofoGone]

I was going to get that book to add to my collection , but not Now!!!

Absolutely GREAT CALL !!

 

[Chrisedge]

Ever think she could be innocent? (Just cause an irish court found her guilty doesn't mean anything...)

I think it was bad publicity on the part of U2 to go after her. She was broke and selling the stuff to pay bills.

 

[Zootomic]

Ever think she could be innocent?

No, not for a second. She has made one sleazy move after another in a clear attempt to leech off from U2 for the rest of her life instead of actually getting a job and working for a living.

I think it was bad publicity on the part of U2 to go after her. She was broke and selling the stuff to pay bills.

That's her story, but I would guess that there's as much truth in that as there is in her 'tell all' book. It all comes down to the fact that she was counting on U2 not wanting to risk any bad publicity and therefore, letting her get away with this crap. But instead, they decided not to let her get away with it and I say 'Way to go guys'! No wait, I say.....

Ok, everybody point at Lola and in their best Nelson voice say:
Ha! Ha!

HA!HA!

 

[Liesje]

Ever think she could be innocent? (Just cause an irish court found her guilty doesn't mean anything...)

I think it was bad publicity on the part of U2 to go after her. She was broke and selling the stuff to pay bills.

Considering we don't know any of the details of the case (which sounds like is over 2 years old), there really hasn't been much publicity at all besides a few articles from the past week and some pics of Bono and Larry in suits.

Maybe she's broke b/c she's a shitty stylist?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I think this was unfair and some sort of money had to be given to the lady for at least finding the items that U2 claimed to be looking for.

it sounds to me that it wasn't that hard for her to "find" them. she claims the band gave them to her, she probably just swiped them at the end of the tour. they would've never known had she not tried to sell them.

it's the same thing with the sudden discovery of the contents of bono's stolen briefcase. how funny, after all those years it was discovered in an attic. both stories seemed quite fishy that they just happened to be given the items (in this case) or that bono just happened to leave behind the briefcase and it took 20+ years to figure out how to contact a band whose info is in every album (in the briefcase, err, case).

 

[VertigoGal]

I doubt they'd pursue the case unless it meant something to them...they have plenty of money. and even if they were greedy bastards or something like that, going into a case like this could potentially cause a lot of bad publicity and really backfire.

As for her being broke...what, her tell-all book didn't sell well?

 

[Meghan]

Ever think she could be innocent? (Just cause an irish court found her guilty doesn't mean anything...)

Well, as I haven't heard enough real information on the case to form any sort of valid conclusion, I choose to have faith in the decsion's of the court -- after all, you'd hope they know a little more about it than me.

BTW, Ireland's not that backwards that their courts don't have respect for human rights, maybe you should think/do your research before critisizing a whole country's justice system.

 

[Chrisedge]

BTW, Ireland's not that backwards that their courts don't have respect for human rights, maybe you should think/do your research before critisizing a whole country's justice system.

I never said anything "critisizing" anyone's legal system. But I'm sure they aren't perfect.

I am also not defending her, but it does look like many people here are "happy" that she was found guilty.

It isn't a huge stretch to think a stylist that picked out all their clothes MIGHT have a hat and some pants from the tour, and took pictures of the band in said clothes.

 

[starsgoblue]

I see what your saying but I also think that if someone is hired for the kind of job she had there is an issue of ethics/confidentiality/integrity which she breached. Unless someone abused or grossly mistreated her there is no reason to write a sleazy "tell-all" book. And the best "dirt" she could come up with is that Bono has a complex about being short--like that wasn't obvious! The man's being wearing heels of some sort since forever!

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I still find it very hard to believe that in U2's 25+ year career they've had only ONE tell-all book. It's well known, and admitted by the band themselves, that Adam in his early years did not behave like a monk. Knowing the British tabloid's obsession with kiss-and-tell stories, I can't believe noone's sold their story. Says more about the U2 organisation's ability to keep things to their chests.