Man demands trial by combat with ex-wife and lawyer to 'rend their souls'
"To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States," David Ostrom pointed out in court records.
By AARON REICHJapanese ancient martial arts master Yoshinori Kouno demonstrates his skills in Tokyo February 14, 2008. The 59-year-old master of Japanese ancient martial arts may never get a chance to test his skills in real combat in the modern world, but some of the country's top athletes are learning from his (photo credit: YURIKO NAKAO/ REUTERS)Divorce can be a messy thing, and different couples often go about coping with it in different ways.Trial by combat is a more unusual approach, especially today.This is exactly what happened, however, when 40-year-old David Ostrom of Kansas asked the court to allow him to meet his ex-wife Bridgette and her lawyer "on the field of battle where [I] will rend their souls from their corporal (sic) bodies," the Des Moines Register reported.Ostrom and his ex-wife have been engaged in numerous frustrating legal battles over property taxes, visitation rights and custody issues, to the extent that he claimed she and her lawyer Matthew Hudson had "destroyed [me] legally."In addition, he also requested the court grant him "lead time" of 12 weeks to either source or forge katana and wakizashi swords.In court records, Ostrom points out that "To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States," and that it was used in Britian as recently as 1818.Oddly enough, there is legal precedence for this in the US. As Ostrom told the Des Moines Register, New York Supreme Court Justice Philip Minardo acknowledged in 2016 that duels had not technically been abolished.In response to Ostrom's request, Hudson filed a resistance, arguing that death – the assumed outcome of a duel – was disproportionate to any of the legal battles Ostrom and his ex-wife faced.In addition, Hudson added that "just because the US 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."However, Ostrom has not been deterred, arguing that trials by combat could also end when one of the combatants "cries craven" by surrendering. In fact, he argued that because Hudson and his ex-wife refused "to answer the call to battle... they should lose this motion by default," and added that he would willingly proceed with "blunted practice style" swordplay if need be.
Ostrom also added that this would be his go-to tactic for any other disputes that would arise in court.Due to irregularities with motions and responses on both sides, the court said they wouldn't issue any response until proper procedures are followed, the Associated Press reported.
