I love this guy! Requests ‘trial by combat’ to settle dispute with ex-wife

0
2059

DES MOINES – A Kansas man has asked an Iowa court to grant his motion for trial by combat so he can meet his ex-wife and her attorney “on the field of battle where (he) will rend their souls from their corporal bodies.”

David Ostrom, 40, of Paola, Kansas, claims in court documents that his ex-wife, Bridgette Ostrom, 38, of Harlan, has “destroyed (him) legally. “He asked the Iowa District Court in Shelby County to give him 12 weeks “lead time” in order to source or forge katana and wakizashi swords, as first reported by the Carroll Times Herald. 

“To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States,” Ostrom argues in court records, adding that it was used “as recently as 1818 in British Court.”

When reached by phone Monday, Ostrom told the Des Moines Register that he got the idea after learning about a 2016 case in which New York Supreme Court Justice Philip Minardo acknowledged that duels had not been abolished. Ostrom said the motion stemmed from his frustrations with his ex-wife’s attorney, Matthew Hudson of Harlan. “I think I’ve met Mr. Hudson’s absurdity with my own absurdity,” he said.

Ostrom, who said he plans to request the same mediation tactic for any other disputes that may arise in court, added that his ex-wife can choose her attorney as a “champion,” or stand-in fighter. 

Hudson filed a resistance to the trial by combat motion by first correcting Ostrom’s spelling.”Surely (Ostrom) meant ‘corporeal’ bodies which Merriam Webster defines as having, consisting of, or relating to, a physical material body,” the attorney wrote. “Although (Ostrom) and potential combatant do have souls to be rended, they respectfully request that the court not order this done.” Hudson argued that because a duel could end in death, such ramifications likely outweigh those of property tax and custody issues. “It should be noted that just because the U.S. and Iowa constitutions do not specifically prohibit battling another person with a deadly katana sword, it does prohibit a court sitting in equity from ordering same,” Hudson wrote. 

Hudson asked the court to suspend Ostrom’s visitation rights and order him to undergo a court-ordered psychological evaluation. Ostrom later admitted to the misspelling, but argued he has no history of mental issues. 

Historically, he said in court records, trial by combat was not always won by way of death, but also when a party “cries craven,” yielding to the other. “Respondent and counsel have proven themselves to be cravens by refusing to answer the call to battle, thus they should lose this motion by default,” Ostrom wrote, adding that if the other party decided otherwise, he wants to proceed with a “blunted practice style” of sword play.

The court has not yet ruled.