Iowa man requests 'trial by combat' using swords to settle custody battle with wife: 'It's not banned in the US'
David Ostrom from Paola, Kansas, who is in the process of separating from wife Bridgette Ostrom, has requested this because he is keen to meet 'on the field of battle where [he] will rend their souls from their corporeal bodies'.
In Iowa — not in Westeros — a 40-year-old man has requested “trial by combat” as the means to settle his divorce.
According to The Des Moines Register, David Ostrom from Paola, Kansas, who is in the process of separating from wife Bridgette Ostrom, has requested their custody dispute be settled in a “trial by combat” with swords because he is keen to meet “on the field of battle where [he] will rend their souls from their corporeal bodies”.
The strangeness doesn’t end there. David, as per a report in the Carroll Times Herald, has also asked that if his request gets approved, he'll need up to three months to “source or forge katana and wakizashi swords”.
David, in fact, told Judge Craig Dreismeier, “To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States.”
He further argued that “trial by combat” had been used as recently as 1818 in British Court. David, if nothing, also seems to be fair and chivalrous. He suggested that his wife's lawyer, Matthew Hudson, could act as her “champion” in the “trial by combat”. He went so far as to suggest that if Bridgette so required it, she could even get a different champion to stand in for her.
David reportedly said, “I think I've met Mr. Hudson's absurdity with my own absurdity. If Mr. Hudson is willing to do it, I will meet him. I don't think he has the guts to do it.”
Hudson, of course, has not agreed to these terms. Arguing to Judge Dreismeier, he said that not only could a “trial by combat” result in death or serious injury but also “such ramifications likely outweigh those of property tax and custody issue”.
“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 the same,” Hudson argued.
If things weren’t already bizarre so far, David, the one who suggested a “trial by combat” has also admitted that he has no experience in sword fighting.
Per 7News, judge Dreismeier hasn't yet ruled on either suggestion because of irregularities on both sides. He said, “Until the proper procedural steps to initiate a court proceeding are followed, this court will take no further action concerning any motion, objection or petition filed by either party at this time.”