I have a lot of respect for great lawyers/judges. While they're saying what is essentially gibberish to me, and they're asking "open' questions, that build on the responses, all along they're slowly backing their opponent further and further into a trap until a dramatic finish when all is revealed.<p>Example here<p>The Chancellor interrupted to ask whether he could cite any case that permitted common law ratification of “an adjudicated breach of the duty of loyalty.” Ross danced around the question, insisting that Defendants were not arguing that the vote changed the Court’s adjudication “with respect to conduct.” Blah blah blah, skip a bit...<p>“So,” asked the Chancellor, “this has never been done before?” After a bit more rhetorical contortion, Ross finally admitted that, “Yes,” this has never been done before.<p>Thus, with these questions, the Chancellor established that for her to rule in Defendants’ favor, her Court of Chancery, which is subordinate to the Delaware Supreme Court, would be placed in the position of establishing a completely new legal doctrine.<p>It's like a brilliant magic trick, if you can follow along.