Representing your self in court

[Agadefe]

This is why it's probably not a good idea (especially when you're a millionaire football player that can probably afford not to):

http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/c...ranscripts.php

Spoiler:

Thursday we reported that Redskins tight end Fred Davis has spent the past 18 months engaged in a civil lawsuit with a woman he knows from the nightclub scene.

The woman, Makini R. Chaka, 33, said in court testimony that she is a “celebrity broker” who arranges parties for sports and entertainment stars. “My job is to call and set up events for my clients and we are paid every time that we come,” Chaka testified. “I do a lot of parties with famous people, whether it’s singers, whether it’s rappers, whether it’s athletes.”

But Stewart Prince, a bodyguard who has worked for Davis, alleged in court documents that Chaka is “a ‘madam/pimpette’ who provides escorts to high-profile athletes and entertainers.”

“It is well-known in the sports and entertainment industry, particularly in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, that [Chaka] recruits women to work for her and provide sexual favors to athletes or other entertainer[s] in exchange for money,” Prince said in court documents.

Curiously, Davis—who recently signed a one-year, $5.4 million contract with the Redskins—served as his own defense counsel during the case. He has no formal legal training.

“It’s all hearsay,” Davis told the judge during an April hearing.

Chaka also represented herself during the case, which is scheduled to go to trial on March 11, 2013. Here are some courtroom exchanges that have occurred between Chaka and Davis during their year-and-a-half-long legal drama, according to transcripts of DC Superior Court hearings:
See Also
Redskins’ Fred Davis’s Legal Mess: Harassment Suit, Restraining Order

The tight end acts as his own defense counsel in an 18-month-long case involving a “celebrity broker” and including allegations that he impersonated Santana Moss.

Makini Chaka cross-examination of Fred Davis, February 11, 2011

Chaka: Mr. Davis, you said that you did not know me on a friendship level. Is it true that I have, that I have or have not been to your home?

Davis: You’ve never been to my house. You’ve dropped someone off, a teammate to my house but that was it.

Chaka: I’ve never stayed the night at your home?

Davis: You’ve never stayed at my house ever. Ever.

Chaka: I’ve never been in your recording studio at your home?

Davis: No. You’ve never been—like I’m not going to, I don’t know how—

Chaka: So we never hung out at your house and stayed the night over there . . . and watched episodes of Martin before.

Davis: You’ve never, ever stayed at my house. You’ve been at Devin’s house, [former Redskins wide receiver] Devin Thomas’s, that’s another teammate of mine. You’re naming things that we’ve done over his house. He has a studio in his house. He has all those things that you’re talking about. I mean, as far as you coming to my house, you dropped someone off.

Chaka: Was there ever, was there ever a time that you and I were both at Devin’s house together?

Davis: Yes you’ve been there. You’re friends with him. Yes.

Chaka cross-examination of Davis, April 10, 2012

Chaka: Well, let’s look at your document. It says December the 3rd, 2012. What’s today’s date, Mr. Davis?

Davis: I don’t know. I don’t know.

Chaka: What’s the date of today?

Davis: I don’t know what today is. All I know is I had court today.

Chaka: You don’t know what today’s date is? His document is not even valid.

Davis: What are you talking about? . . .

Chaka: Well, according to your statement, to bullet No. 5, it says that this event happened December 3rd, 2012.

Davis: Okay, and, what about it?

Chaka: Has December 3rd, 2012 even happened yet?

Davis: What?

Chaka: What? That’s the same thing I’m saying, Mr. Davis.

Davis: It was a misprint. Okay, December 3rd, 2011, okay, great.

Chaka: You signed an official document that you turned into the court—

Davis: With the wrong date, okay, all right.

Chaka: Stating that this incident happened on this date when there’s no such thing.

Davis: Okay, it’s a misprint.

Chaka: There’s no such event that could have ever happened on December the 3rd, 2012.

Davis: A misprint, okay.

Chaka: It’s not valid.

Davis: It is a misprint. It is a misprint.

Chaka cross-examination of Davis on February 11, 2011

Chaka: Also, Mr. Davis, you said that once that the liquid was thrown at you in the club that your eyes were, were burning.

Davis: Yes.

Chaka: However, you returned less than three minutes later to throw the drink on me. So if your eyes were burning and you were that much of a, of a victim, why didn’t you leave the club?

Davis: Well, because I mean, first of all it was my [birthday] party. If anything, you should have had to leave because it was my party and I mean, like, like I’m supposed to be having a good time. Second of all, it don’t take that long to rub liquor out of your face. I mean it took me about two or three minutes to get my eyes like right. Like wow, I still was blurry vision and my eyes were still burning that night for the whole night. After that, I was like, well, shoot, that’s crazy, that’s messed up, so after that I grabbed the juice and I poured it on you. That was it.

Chaka: So if your eyes were burning, why didn’t you seek medical attention as I have—

Davis: Because—

Chaka: —for my, my injury from you?

Davis: I don’t have any personal vendetta. I don’t have any personal reason to get money out of you, I mean, like for what? Why would I do that? I can take care of myself. I don’t need to seek medical attention, I’m getting Lasik eye surgery, yeah, but other than that, I’m not going to try to make you pay for it. Why? I don’t, I wouldn’t even give you the satisfaction, so.

Chaka: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

Chaka cross-examination of Davis on April 10, 2012

Chaka: Let’s look at these photos right here. Because I went to college. I go back to my homecoming every year. Why? Because a building on the campus named after a family of my family.

Davis: So, they use a pimp cup, that’s all.

Chaka: Mr. Davis, I’m drinking out of a decorated accessory as many celebrities do.

Davis: Many celebrities as who, Magic Don Juan that’s a pimp?

Chaka: As Paris Hilton, as Snoop Dog, as Little John—I work with celebrities. Don’t you think it could have been a gift from one of them?

Chaka cross-examination of Davis, April 10, 2012

Davis: But as it shows, you also have your hands on his genitals. I mean, why would you take a picture like that?

Chaka: I do not. Let’s look closely at the exhibit right here, Judge. Where is my hand placed in this exhibit?

Judge: I don’t answer questions, Ms. Chaka.

Chaka: Oh, sorry.

Judge: The witness does.

Chaka: Can you tell me where my hand is actually at in this photo?

Davis: It looks like it’s in the genitals to me. I mean your hands are on his genitals. Your hand is on his—

Chaka: Objection.

My favorite part is the end:

Davis: But as it shows, you also have your hands on his genitals. I mean, why would you take a picture like that?

Chaka: I do not. Let’s look closely at the exhibit right here, Judge. Where is my hand placed in this exhibit?

Judge: I don’t answer questions, Ms. Chaka.

Chaka: Oh, sorry.

Judge: The witness does.

Chaka: Can you tell me where my hand is actually at in this photo?

Davis: It looks like it’s in the genitals to me. I mean your hands are on his genitals. Your hand is on his—

Chaka: Objection.

[hd]

I'm not sure which of them comes across as dumber.

[Patience]

Like a milking stool, my case rests on three legs. I will demonstrate that I was improperly instructed in driving by a woman whose lack of respect for society borders on the sociopathic. I will argue that the emergency met the legal doctrine of quod est necessarium est licitum, that which is necessary is legal. But first, I will raise a Sixth Amendment issue. I’m unable to confront my accuser, a non-human entity, to wit, a camera. So, to sum up, improper instruction, quod est necessarium est licitum, Sixth Amendment. My milk stool is complete.

[ditkaworshipper]

I see you read the same sports blogs I do

[oedipus rex]

so your favorite part involves touching a man's genitals? can't say i'm surprised....

[Anthemyst]

I'm really confused. Who's suing whom for what? I know being a madame is illegal, but why's it a civil case? And wouldn't Davis and Chaka be on the same side if he'd used her services?

[Keef]

Davis: It is a misprint. It is a misprint.

That's not Moops, you jerk. It's Moors!

[Agadefe]

Originally Posted by Anthemyst

I'm really confused. Who's suing whom for what? I know being a madame is illegal, but why's it a civil case? And wouldn't Davis and Chaka be on the same side if he'd used her services?

I think she's suing him for throwing a drink on her or something. And then also from keeping her away from nightclubs (another article I read said he impersonated a different football player in order to do so).

[Enough Exams Already]

Originally Posted by Patience

Like a milking stool, my case rests on three legs. I will demonstrate that I was improperly instructed in driving by a woman whose lack of respect for society borders on the sociopathic. I will argue that the emergency met the legal doctrine of quod est necessarium est licitum, that which is necessary is legal. But first, I will raise a Sixth Amendment issue. I’m unable to confront my accuser, a non-human entity, to wit, a camera. So, to sum up, improper instruction, quod est necessarium est licitum, Sixth Amendment. My milk stool is complete.

RN.