Skip to comments.Kansas man requests 'trial by combat' with swords to settle custody battle with ex-wife (not satire...for real)
Posted on 01/15/2020 10:35:42 AM PST by Bruiser 10
A Kansas man has asked an Iowa judge to let him engage in a sword fight with his ex-wife and her attorney so that he can rend their souls from their bodies.
David Ostrom, 40, of Paola, Kansas, said in a Jan. 3 court filing that his former wife, Bridgette Ostrom, 38, of Harlan, Iowa, and her attorney, Matthew Hudson, had destroyed (him) legally. The Ostroms have been embroiled in disputes over custody and visitation issues and property tax payments.
The judge had the power to let the parties resolve our disputes on the field of battle, legally," David Ostrom said, adding in his filing that trial by combat "has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States."
He also asked the judge for 12 weeks' time so he could secure Japanese samurai swords.
(Excerpt) Read more at kake.com ...
H. L. Mencken
REAL MEN don’t duel women!
I’d hold him in contempt just for that unchivalrous move.
I like this idea. It could mean fewer attorneys.
She could appoint a champion to fight for her. Usually her current significant other - which may actually be the real goal of this guy.
Many a man in his situation has considered just killing his soon to be ex.
He’ll be out of jail much sooner than the years he’ll spending in court fighting her, and paying alimony and child support.
Something tells me the judge won’t rule in his favor.
Since her lawyer represents her he should do battle.
MAN! That headline almost cost me a company keyboard replacement from my Diet Pepsi :D
Am I going too far out on a limb to conclude that it isn't an amicable divorce?
I think the Challenger declares the desire for the duel, the person who is challenged gets to pick the weapon. This guy seems to want to control everything!
Put it on Pay Per View...
This request should immediately cost him both custody of the children plus visitation rights.
No wonder they have been “embroiled” in a battle! The wife has been telling everyone who will listen that this guy is mentally ill, and he just proved it!
He is clearly a threat to others.
You don’t support the Equal Rights Amendment...?
He should be aware that classical combat rules for spouses (at least in Christian lands) had the man standing in a hole with one arm tied behind his back....
Oh, I don’t know. I was hoping that McConnell would have the impeachment trial be a trial by combat. Pelosi vs. President Trump with axes.
For some reason, I never saw him after that.
what some of these women put these men through is outrageous so I’m not surprised.
here is just a sampling of what one man in the military went through: (BM = biomom/ex-wife)
BM has parentally alienated son age 15 to the extreme
BM has refused to send him per the court orders to our state for over 17 months
Son currently believes that father never wanted him or fought for him, that it just stepmom pulling the strings because stepmom wanted to take him away from mom. (Stepmom has 3 teen children of her own so, no)due to BM’s brainwashing
Son has publicly rejected his father every time he sees him around the BM
HOWEVER- Son also hugged and cried and told his dad he loved him the last time that they saw each other when BM wasn’t in the room.
BM was the one that moved away when she left husband while he was on a deployment 6.5 years ago.
Dad and Stepmom have spent over 60K in the last 3 years in court battles.
Dad going there is not an option. BM and son live in a No-Stoplight town. Dad either has to get a hotel about an hour from son or stay with MIL which is over 1.5 hrs from son.
PLUS there is 0 guarantee that son will even be there when Dad gets there. BM likes to send him away during Dad’s parenting time so that no one can reach him.
Courts do NOT hold the BM accountable.
There’s an obscure, but noteworthy, case where a guy demanded trial by combat in England, when he was accused of a neighbor of raping the neighbor’s daughter. He used the same argument as the Kentucky guy is using here — it was a remedy available in the past and still on the books.
But the English guy tried it in 1819. At that time it had not been used for about 300 years. They allowed him to use it, at which point the neighbor dropped the lawsuit. Parliament then immediately banned the procedure, IIRC.
We in the US are inheritors of English common law as it existed in 1789, so what Parliament did in 1819 has direct application here, even aside from the fact that acts of Parliament are not common law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.