David Ostrom, 40-year-old man, has prayed an Iowa district court in Shelby County to approve his request to use “trial by combat” to settle a lingering legal battle with Bridgette, his ex-wife.
In the motion filed before the court, Ostrom, a native of Kansas, accused his 38-year-old wife and Matthew Hudson, her lawyer of “destroying him legally,”
“I think I’ve met Mr. Hudson’s absurdity with my own absurdity,” he said.
According to Des Moines Register, the embattled man is seeking to engage his ex-wife and her lawyer “on the field of battle where (he) will rend their souls from their corporal bodies.”
Making a case for his request, Ostrom argued that “trial by combat” was not alien to the US laws, recalling it was used “as recently as 1818 in British Court.”
“To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States,” he argued in the motion.
He said the idea of using “trial by combat” was from a 2016 case where Philip Minardo, New York court justice, noted the method was still applicable.
Buttressing his point, he stated the idea of “trial by combat” does not necessarily mean death as speculated, making reference to previous court cases where such was used.
“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.
According to him, his ex-wife could chose her lawyer as a “champion,” or “stand-n-fighter, adding he intends using such strategy to address other disputes that occur in the distant future.
In his response, Bridgette’s lawyer rejected Ostrom’s request for a duel, arguing such request could result into death and then picked faults in his motion.
Hudson further called on the court to order Ostrom to undergo medical examination.
“Surely (Ostrom) meant ‘corporeal’ bodies which Merriam Webster defines as having, consisting of, or relating to, a physical material body,” Hudson wrote.
“Although (Ostrom) and potential combatant do have souls to be rended, they respectfully request that the court not order this done.
“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.”
While Ostrom admitted his motion contained errors, he denied having mental disorder as Hudson claimed.
Craig Dreismeier, the judge, is yet to rule on the claims by both parties.
“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,” said the judge.