DES MOINES, Iowa – A Kansas man 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, "destroyed (him) legally."
He asked the Iowa District Court in Shelby County to give him 12 weeks' "lead time" to source or forge katana and wakizashi swords, according to 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 argued in court records, saying it was used "as recently as 1818 in British Court."
Monday, Ostrom told the Des Moines Register he got the idea after learning about a case in 2016 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.
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 probably 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 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 swordplay.
The court did not rule on either party's motions. Hudson was not immediately available for comment.
Ostrom, who said he doesn't have any experience with sword fighting, doesn't anticipate the judge will let his request go forward, but he wants an answer anyway.
When asked whether he was serious about the dueling offer, Ostrom said, "If Mr. Hudson is willing to do it, I will meet him. I don't think he has the guts to do it."
Kansas man wants Japanese swordfight to settle custody battle with ex
David Ostrom, 40, of Paola, Kansas, claims in court documents that his ex-wife, Bridgette Ostrom, 38, "destroyed (him) legally."
He asked the Iowa District Court in Shelby County to give him 12 weeks' "lead time" to source or forge katana and wakizashi swords, according to 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 argued in court records, saying it was used "as recently as 1818 in British Court."
Monday, Ostrom told the Des Moines Register he got the idea after learning about a case in 2016 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.
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 probably 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 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 swordplay.
The court did not rule on either party's motions. Hudson was not immediately available for comment.
Ostrom, who said he doesn't have any experience with sword fighting, doesn't anticipate the judge will let his request go forward, but he wants an answer anyway.
When asked whether he was serious about the dueling offer, Ostrom said, "If Mr. Hudson is willing to do it, I will meet him. I don't think he has the guts to do it."
Kansas man wants Japanese swordfight to settle custody battle with ex
"
