Back from the Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell Hearing
We’re back from today’s hearing in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. In terms of entertainment value, it was a bit of a disappointment.
It was a pretty straightforward proceeding. No salacious accusations of destroyed hard drives; no mystery lawyers popping out of the audience to join in the fun; no mention of attorney disciplinary proceedings. Just arguments from counsel, with a lot of mumbled questions from Justice Bernard Fried (who really needs to speak into his microphone — or turn it on, maybe).
There were no rulings from the bench on any of the motions. Justice Fried took everything under advisement — and promised a ruling on at least one of the motions “shortly.” (We may have a more detailed report later; but really, there wasn’t much to write home about.)
For us, the most exciting part of today’s proceedings was getting to meet plaintiff Aaron Charney, in the flesh. We approached him during a break and introduced ourselves. He shook our hand, but didn’t say more (and seemed nervous). His voice was high, thin, a bit fey.
As for his appearance, we thought he wasn’t as cute as he is in photos. We also thought he looked older than we expected. But we chatted with two fellow spectators during a break, and they voiced the opposite views. They thought he looked more attractive in person, and younger in person than in photographs.
Here’s a picture we took of Aaron Charney exiting the courthouse:
Unfortunately, he has his eyes closed (as we did at several points during the soporific proceedings). But you can see his crisp grey suit, baby blue shirt, and red necktie (Ferragamo is our guess). Perhaps he assembled this elegant ensemble at a Charney’s Shop?
Earlier: Brokeback Lawfirm: How Long Will This Spectacle Go On?
(59) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Does that suit really fit him? It looks a little tight. Perhaps he put on weight as a result of stress.
His umbrella is very utilitarian. Not one of those big, multicolored numbers. Also, no overcoat on a day like this?
Lat, you told us what didn't happen, but not what did. Can you give us a broad summary of what arguments were raised and by whom? Could you tell which way the Judge was leaning? Did he indicate when he might have a decision? Some details, man! Details!
I think it's one of those umbrellas you buy on the street.
the suit fits him well i think... the pants are a modern cut but look at the room around the midsection in his jacket...
people who carry big multicolored umbrellas in new york should be fined. they take up too much space on the sidewalk
1:42 - He got it from me. I sell umbrellas just like that by the courtroom. I quickly slipped his defense team my resume along with the umbrella, but *sigh* I saw them throw it away at the nearest trash can.
"His voice was high, thin, a bit fey"
"he wasn't as cute as he is in photos"
Rut roh. I thought the Canada TV interview made him look very doable. But from Lat's comments, perhaps I'll have to delete it from my "self-entertainment" folder...
He's wearing the pants a little high, dontcha think?
He left his tie too long. Poor form. For that matter, the jacket may well be too long, but it's hard to tell from that photo.
he looks like he's sucking in his stomach
He left his tie too long. Poor form. For that matter, the jacket may well be too long, but it's hard to tell from that photo.
Nice looking suit, flat-front pants. The jacket, however, looks WAY too long, and the pants look like they go up to Charney's belly button.
I don't think he should have worn such an expensive, fashionable suit. Someone who is benighted and asking for millions of dollars should make an effort to look a little frumpy.
Who's the hot stud to the left?
I think he looks shaggable, but what do I know.
I'm sorry but the suit looks like crap. It's an ugly color of grey and it's tight on him. I see too much of his stomach and upper thigh.
I can't believe I actually wasted my time reading this post or these comments.
This blog is a joke sometimes, Lat. But it's not a very funny one.
It's totally inappropriate to talk about shagging Charney, but since you people so rudely insist on talking about it, do we know if he's a top or bottom?
2:06,
Seriously? I think he's all frump in this suit. I mean, the jacket is too long, the tie is too long, and the suit doesn't have a trouser break. As for the color, it doesn't do anything for him. Charcoal would have been a better choice.
Agree with KFU completely. The suit doesn't look elegant or expensive. It certainly doesn't look stylish (coats are being cut extremely short these days). He looks like a thirteen year-old at a bar-mitzvah.
1:27 - what are you talking about? he looks emaciated... though not quite as thin as he did in that b&w photo for the new yorker mag a couple of months ago.
1:54 and 2:01 are right... the jacket is WAY too long. it shouldn't completely CYA, as it seems to do from the picture.
the suit is probably calvin klein or donna karan. you couldn't wear a prada or armani up to your nipples like that. they aren't cut so high. yikes.
and no way that tie is ferragamo. ferragamo does not use prints like that. the dominating pattern in abc's tie is horizontal or vertical lines, which ever way you choose to see it, if you were to imagine connecting the dots in a logical fashion. ferragamo uses prints that have a checkered pattern, giving the appearance of diagonal lines as the dominating lines, if you could imagine connecting the dots. i don't know if that made sense, but trust me, that isn't a ferragamo.
2:29: My guess would be a top. Here's my anecdotal evidence why: He's a Republican gay, and in my experience Republican gays tend to be tops. I think they think that being the top makes them "less gay" or something (in fact a straight friend once told me that straight men commonly believe this to be true). The fact that he also came out later in life also supports my argument that he's a top. He probably shagged women in high school and college, and obvo he was a top then. lol.
But then again Lat is a Republican and I would bet money he's a bottom, so who knows. But then again Lat's asian, and asian gays tend to be bottoms.
I think the jacket is not only too wide in the middle, it is also too long. His pants are too high, but the cut is basically good.
Fitted shirt is good too, as it does not create false muffin top.
And as for that last question: total top. Look how he's checking out the ass on the guy in front of him.
Straight men: Is it true that you think tops are "less gay" than bottoms?
If anyone watches the Sopranos, in the episode where the mobsters find out Vito is gay, they go crazy when they found out that Vito was giving another guy head, with the implication being that if Vito was just getting a blowjob from another man, that would have been tolerable.
2:37 - LOL.
Krautheimer apparently thought Charney was a bottom, right?
i'm a straight man. yes, i think tops are intrinsically "less gay" than bottoms. also, as a straight man, can i ask whether these roles are rigidly defined and permanent? does a top ever become a bottom and vice versa?
This is terrible thread hijacking, but what about straight men who use a strapon every once in a while? Are they gayer? Even than gay men who are tops?
Are there really *assignments* in gay relationships? Hmm...the questions we don't actually ask our friends....(then again I've never discussed sexual positions in the specific with my female friends either).
Why does AC look like he walked out of the seventies?
I'm with KFU except for the trouser break. ABC's look is consistent with what I take to be the recent trend.
2:51: I'm gay and do both (we call it "vers"). I have friends who are vers and friends who are exclusively tops or exclusively bottoms (though the latter is rarer, at least in my experience).
2:56 - maybe you were just referring to the trouser break. but if not, i assure you that wearing what's practically a 3/4-length overcoat as your suit jacket is quite the opposite of the recent trend.
Top or bottom isn't an assignment - it's what an individual prefers to do. It often depends on the guy one is with. I'm gay, and based on my experience, I am about 75% bottom, 25% top. I like one more than the other. And no, it doesn't mean one is more or less masculine. What it means is that I'm a damn good bottom. ;-)
There are plenty of "masculine" bottoms out there, just as there are fem tops. There's a whole variety of gays out there, and it would be nearly impossible to pigeon hole everyone of us into either the top or bottom category, with other generalizations (i.e., feminine, masculine) attached to each category.
To 3:06 - Hi Alberto Gonzales!
Top or bottom isn't an assignment - it's what an individual prefers to do. It often depends on the guy one is with. I'm gay, and based on my experience, I am about 75% bottom, 25% top. I like one more than the other. And no, it doesn't mean one is more or less masculine. What it means is that I'm a damn good bottom. ;-)
There are plenty of "masculine" bottoms out there, just as there are fem tops. There's a whole variety of gays out there, and it would be nearly impossible to pigeon hole everyone of us into either the top or bottom category, with other generalizations (i.e., feminine, masculine) attached to each category.
Suit pants (unlike jeans) are meant to be worn above the hips. Depending on the distance from the crotch to the belt line, traditional suit pants should be worn close to the belly button. Otherwise, you'll look like a moron with a saggy crotch. But maybe that's the look you're going for.
I'm going to have to stick to my no-break assessment. Look at the Spring 07 armani line. Almost a full break. Sure Brooks Brothers had almost no break last year...but I personally dislike that look. I'm glad to see it go (assuming of course that Armani is setting the tone for the foreseeable future).
3:22, but suit pants shouldn't be so tight that I see your gunt and upper thighs.
3:27 - That's another issue altogether, and one on which I agree.
3:06 -- rar...what's your #? haha.
Lavi Soloway was at the hearing and posted a somewhat more detailed report on his blog. He also posted a picture of Charney leaving court, but got him smiling with eyes open....
by the way - straight men should really be more amenable to getting sexual favors from gay men. everyone benefits. and it's not nearly as homosexual as "pegging" (which strangely involves a woman)
Can someone buy Lavi a good ($300) camera?
3:44. I think if a straight man got sexual favors from a gay man...
that would be wicked gay
Man does he look fruity
Response to 4:00 - Bros before hos.
the pants are sufficiently tight that it is doubtful that he would be able to bend over - perhaps a new strategy
I've never experienced pegging (receptive strapon sex from a woman), but it seems much much much less gay than any kind of sex with a man.
Welcome to Pee Wee's Playhouse!
3:22 - you're wrong. Only if you get unstylish suit pants with a big (e.g., longer than 10") rise would you pull them up to anywhere near your bellybutton. Get them with a shorter rise, and they're neither baggy at the crotch nor jacked up to your armpits. Quite like jeans, actually.
See, e.g., Prada, Tom Brown NY, any respectable bespoke suit.
KFU@3:25 - I agreed with your earlier post, but I don't know what you're talking about here. Regardless of what label you're wearing, the pants will have whatever break you and your tailor decide you want. I hope no one's buying suits with anything other than un-hemmed pants (do they even make those?). And Brooks Brothers has never been stylish. It's uber-conservative and cheap.
Of course, in practice people have their tailors put in the break that they want, but designers often incorporate a specific break into the style they are using this year. (Meaning that's what they wanted you to use for a break, not that you *have to* use it for a break). See for example Armani's spring collection vs. the previously referenced Prada's spring collection. I only mention Brooks Brothers, because people on this board seem to shop there and they "suggest" no break according to a friend who works for them.
My legal gossip blogger went to NYC to watch the Charney hearings and all I got was this ridiculous discussion about clothing and gay sex preferences.
(I'm a bottom, for my part.)
Never mind that Charney admitted in his deposition that he leaked the SullCrom performance reviews to the WSJ... or that SullCrom is seeking dismissal of the entire action due to Charney's alleged divulgence of client confidences. Interesting how Lat was all excited about the merits of the case before Charney got sued. Now all we get is discussion about his ties and whether he likes it up the ass.
Is there a way to find out in which category any particular homosexual falls? I am fairly socially conservative and I believe that being on the receiving end of homosexual acts is deeply unnatural and immoral. I would much rather avoid the sorts of people who engage in this kind of position in my daily interactions, to the extent possible. At the same time, I would not want to unfairly discriminate against those homosexuals who have the decency not to engage in this kind of conduct/position, whom I have no problem with.
Was Charney's AOL screen name VGLtopwith8cut? Did he destroy the hard drive to keep S&C from learning about his cyberprowling?
lol 6:04
He looks like a nappy-headed ho.
6:04, the things you cite - Charney's leaking the S&C docs to the WSJ, S&C's motion to dismiss - have been extensively discussed in many earlier posts on this blog. They were discussed at the time the papers were filed. The hearing was just argument on the papers.