From The flowers of wit, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814:
…observed the eminent lawyer, “I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.
Attorney JJ Little
Thursday and Friday, December 18 and 19, 2014, I underwent an experience of being cross-examined as an expert witness in a fraudulent transfer case by Engineer/Contractor Mohsen Loghmani, representing himself in propria persona. It was like stepping into a combination of the 5th Dimension and the Twilight Zone simultaneously. When I got done, I received the following kudos from Plaintiff’s attorney J.J. Little:
Hi Jan, thanks again for (as is usual for you) doing such an unbelievably fantastic job as our resident “expert.” You are truly gifted and it is a real pleasure and privilege to watch you in action. I’ve now seen you testify on numerous occasions and you honestly seem to get better and better-and I do not see how that is possible given that you are from the get-go perfection in action. I do not believe there is anyone better! Again, thank you. Closing arguments are on Monday. I will let you know how it turns out. I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate what you did for us. Have a great evening, JJ
Hopefully I’ll get a copy of the transcript when it’s done because nobody will actually believe some of went on in the courtroom. One example (approximation of the question/answer):
Mohsen Loghmani asked me a question using a word he pronounced as T H E I R and I was pretty sure that was the word he meant instead of T H E R E or T H E Y ‘ R E, but it wasn’t clear because he consistently seemed to be referring to himself and his co-defendant ‘wife,’ Mahshid Loghmani, collectively in questions when he should only have been referring to himself.
I responded: “Did you use the word T H E I R in your question?”
Loghmani: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Sharia Divorce
In the foregoing exchange, I put the word “wife” as ‘wife’ because even that was in question in the case. In an Illinois divorce action, a divorce was granted based upon intentional cruelty alleged by Mahshid against Mohsen Loghmani. Yet, they continued to live together for decades, commingled their funds, and raised their children together. Trying to discharge the underlying judgment in excess of $2 million against him, Mohsen Loghmani alleged under oath that Mahshid was still his wife and their testimony in deposition and discovery responses were all over the map on whether or not they were still married; amongst other things a contention was made that the Illinois divorce didn’t matter because they were still married under Iranian law???????
In another exchange with Mohsen Loghmani I had to cite the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as applied to social science and investigation, Kurt Goedel’s mathematical Impossibility Theorem and Ockham’s Razor in my response to his question, to explain why it was impossible for me to respond to or make sense of his question. Loghmani asked me if I could say that in terms a layman could understand and I told him that the problem was that what he was talking about made no sense, in so many words.
In the meantime to see more about this bizarre case and the history of Mohsen Loghmani, check out my Skeleton’s Closet at:
You must log in to post a comment.