Just in terms of cross-examination technique, what did you all think?
Graham's a pretty talented trial lawyer, yet here he is pulling out one of the lamest tricks in the book -- pretending to "forget" where he put the "wise Latina" quote so that he could ask Judge Sotomayor -- twice -- to repeat it from memory!
Then he's all over the map, moving from abortion to the death penalty in a seemingly random way. And some of the questions were exceedingly condescending, or just plain juvenile.
Was this some kind of Matlock/Columbo country lawyer thing, or is he that bad and disorganized a cross-examiner?
Well, I knew my interests in Steely Dan and Alan Kluger would someday converge, and sure enough, that day has come:
The lawsuit is anything but dry reading, depicting Michael Chow as a visionary who brought a designer restaurant serving "the complex and varied cuisine of China" to the West (served on fine china at steep prices) and Philippe Chow as "a lowest-level kitchen assistant."I agree with Alan -- federal judges can be like Labrador Retriever puppies, lovable but easily distracted and prone to urinating from over-excitement when their masters come home.
"We tried to make it so that it was easy to read and quite frankly, so that a judge reading it would be interested in seeing the real human loss to Michael Chow," says Alan Kluger, Michael Chow's lawyer. (Kluger says they are seeking damages that could reach eight figures.)
The suit tells the story of Michael Chow and his "lifetime body of work," with references to his bringing the "ancient art of hand-pulled noodle-making to his restaurants" ("demonstrated in the 'Kung Fu Panda' movie DVD") and his 30th-anniversary party where "it is unlikely that such a famous and diverse group of people has ever been brought together before, or since, to commemorate such an event."
It claims that he's an innovator as the first to serve Chinese meals in courses, has been heralded as a cultural icon alongside McDonald's founder Ray Kroc and is "the one and only Mr. Chow."
You got to keep it fresh, or they will go back to gnawing on that old, comfortable social security disability appeal.