Well, this is weird.
Man requests 'trial by combat' with Japanese swords to settle dispute with Iowa ex-wife
The man noted that trial by combat has never been explicitly banned in the United States.
Ostrom also said that his ex-wife can choose her attorney as her champion, although the attorney doesn't want any part of it.
He also requested that the court suspend Ostrom's visitation rights and order him to undergo a psychological evaluation. Ostrom denied that he had any mental issues.
I don't know what their actual dispute is, but I've known that some divorce cases can get kind of weird.
So, what do you think about "trial by combat"? Would it make trials any fairer? After all, it's often been observed that the wealthy have a distinct advantage, since they can afford to hire better, smarter, more clever attorneys, while the less wealthy have to take whatever they can afford.
If it's considered legitimate that the legal spoils often go to the side which is most skilled at chicanery, manipulation, and deceit, why should trial by combat be considered any different? One tests the skills of a con artist, while the other tests combat skills.
Man requests 'trial by combat' with Japanese swords to settle dispute with Iowa ex-wife
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.
The man noted that trial by combat has never been explicitly banned in the United States.
"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."
Ostrom also said that his ex-wife can choose her attorney as her champion, although the attorney doesn't want any part of it.
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."
He also requested that the court suspend Ostrom's visitation rights and order him to undergo a psychological evaluation. Ostrom denied that he had any 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.
I don't know what their actual dispute is, but I've known that some divorce cases can get kind of weird.
So, what do you think about "trial by combat"? Would it make trials any fairer? After all, it's often been observed that the wealthy have a distinct advantage, since they can afford to hire better, smarter, more clever attorneys, while the less wealthy have to take whatever they can afford.
If it's considered legitimate that the legal spoils often go to the side which is most skilled at chicanery, manipulation, and deceit, why should trial by combat be considered any different? One tests the skills of a con artist, while the other tests combat skills.