I’m not sure that words exist to describe the theater of the absurd that is a lawsuit between Redskins tight end Fred Davis and a Washington area celebrity party organizer/escort/pimp/whatever. That’s problematic because I’m in the business of using words to describe things.

But, well, any time a “pimp cup” is referenced in a court of law, the spiral of ridiculousness is well underway.

The lawsuit is tied to an incident that happened well over a year ago in January of 2011, and the woman doing the suing is Makini Chaka, who claims she was injured by Davis at a D.C. nightclub. Davis’ first mistake was being associated with a woman named Chaka, and his next mistake is representing himself in a legal matter.

Yep, Davis is his own lawyer here, and so is Chaka, which has resulted in some delightful exchanges documented at length in this compelling and rich story by the Washingtonian. The two have a history dating back to Davis’ days at USC that’s led to a frosty relationship, and by sheer happenstance they wound up at the same nightclub during a surprise birthday party for Davis. When the tight end’s entourage grew to be too large for their section of the club, they were asked to move to another area, an area that was in the vicinity of Chaka, Davis’ devil woman.

Knowing the possibility for a conflict, Davis says he approached her, touched her on the wrist to get her attention, and had the intention of saying “we don’t got to be friends, just be cordial because I might take this section next to you.”

But then she threw a drink at his face, and Davis responded the way any reasonable person would respond when drenched with alcohol: he grabbed the nearest pitcher of juice, and dumped it on Chaka’s head.

He then tossed the empty pitcher at Chaka, and she claims it busted her “actual lip.” Davis thinks that allegation and the case as a whole is completely bunk, describing it as “all made up and flagellant.” That’s now become my response to everything, ever.

Whether Chaka is in fact a successful business woman (her words, not mine), or a sleazy pimpette who organizes escorts is unclear too (she may or may not own a pimp cup), although she denies any role in prostitution. But thankfully that allegation exists, because without it we wouldn’t have the line of questioning below between the two amateur attorneys as Davis tries to prove that Chaka is little more than an extortion artist.

From the Washingtonian:

During cross-examination at the April hearing, the two armchair attorneys argued over a photograph of Chaka, a woman, and two men:

Davis: “As it shows, you also have your hand 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 do not answer questions. . . . 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.”

The trial is set for March 13, 2013, and here’s to hoping that HBO features it as part of their 24/7 series.

Comments (2)

  1. I love that the witness, who is also the lawyer, objected to the line of questioning the defendant, the other lawyer, was asking.

    • And the mental image of both “attorneys” concentrating intensely on an exhibit that may or may not show the plaintiff’s hands on a man’s junk is pure gold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *