Man requests trial by combat in legal dispute with ex-wife

Well, this is weird.

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Stevicus said:

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.

Click to expand...

He needs a psyche evaluation.

Dueling is against the law, isn't it?

sooda said:

He needs a psyche evaluation.

Dueling is against the law, isn't it?

Click to expand...

That was one of the points made in the article:


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.

Stevicus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Something about this whole story puts a big smile on my face*. *Grin*

*Don't tell my wife. She can beat me up.

Such a settlement method demands ritual & music.

A trial clarifies the facts in a dispute. Would combat clarify the pertinent facts here or just determine who's the better combatant?

Valjean said:

A trial clarifies the facts in a dispute. Would combat clarify the pertinent facts here or just determine who's the better combatant?

Click to expand...

I think it's based in the idea that, whoever wins, God must be on their side. So, why would any court presume to overrule God? It makes perfect sense, from a certain point of view.

Serious answer: No, of course trial by combat shouldn't be allowed. Who can win in a fight has absolutely no relevance to whether they're in the right or innocent.

Less serious answer: Yes it should be allowed but with a few conditions. Firstly, the only weapons allowed are halberds with a falchion as a sidearm. Secondly, combatants may only wear a loincloth. Thirdly, the combat arena must be suspended above a pit of spikes. Fourthly, if one party wishes to use a champion they must first pass the trial of a thousand burning knives. If they fail the trial of a thousand burning knives they are not only denied the use of a champion, what remains of their body will enter the duel with no sidearm.

The victor will not only have won the case, they will also have their likeness added to a Boris Vallejo painting.

Sigh...
Kansas.
Tom

ETA ~$5 says he considers himself a Christian.~

Stevicus said:

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.

Click to expand...

The rich do not only have the money to hire better lawyers, they also have the money to hire better better champions (if allowed) and better teachers.

Stevicus said:

So, what do you think about "trial by combat"? Would it make trials any fairer?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be fair for me. I'm well trained in not hurting people with a sword.

Stevicus said:

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.

Click to expand...

I did a quick review of historical cases using trial by combat.
Whilst I was initially thinking it would be horribly skewed to favour either the most brutish of men, or the wealthiest of men able to employ champions (or employ lackeys to challenge others to combat, leaving them at home wearing smoking jackets and sipping port) it turns out that ACTUALLY it favours the most brutish of men, or the wealthiest of men able to employ champions (or employ lackeys to challenge others to combat, leaving them at home wearing smoking jackets and smoking cigars)

So I humbly apologise to all you port drinkers out there.

Heyo said:

It wouldn't be fair for me. I'm well trained in not hurting people with a sword.

Click to expand...

I think I need to sue you. Over...something.
*sharpens katana*

lewisnotmiller said:

I think I need to sue you. Over...something.
*sharpens katana*

Click to expand...

Not fair! All my swords are blunt. I demand a 12 week preparation period to forge a katana.
*fires up forge*