Having a hard time with that wretched ex in court? David Ostrom’s got an idea for ya.
As per The Associated Press, in Harlan, Iowa, David’s having to deal with his former wife, who — he claims — has “destroyed (him) legally.”
It’s left the 40-year-old with a single choice, as it turns out.
Ol’ Dave and Bridgette have fought over custody, visitation, property taxes…and the guy’s had it.
Therefore, he’s proposed the only reasonable way to settle it all with his 38-year-old erstwhile ball and chain: a deathmatch.
David’s asked the judge to allow him and his ex-wife — and her attorney, Matthew Hudson — to battle it out once and for all.
With samurai swords.
David believes the judge has the power to let them “resolve [their] disputes on the field of battle, legally.”
I like this guy.
Portrait of successful mediation:
He asked the court for 12 weeks’ time, so he could procure the swords.
Seems reasonable — you wouldn’t wanna fight for the Ultimate Prize with a less-than-optimal bladed melee weapon.
David explained things to The Des Moines Register:
“I think I’ve met Mr. Hudson’s absurdity with my own absurdity.”
And there was this:
Ostrom, who said he plans to request the same mediation tactic for any other disputes that may arise in court, added that his ex-wife can choose her attorney as a “champion,” or stand-in fighter.
Unfortunately for any slow news day in the future, the lawyer isn’t game.
He filed accordingly, taking time to correct his would-be opponent’s spelling:
“Surely (Ostrom) meant ‘corporeal’ bodies which Merriam Webster defines as having, consisting of, or relating to, a physical material body. Although (Ostrom) and potential combatant do have souls to be rended, they respectfully request that the court not order this done.”
More from the Register:
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.”
Matthew wants David’s visitation rights canceled and a forced psychological evaluation.
Maybe not the best response to someone who wants to fight you with a sword.
David thinks his declination hogwash.
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.
Dave’s even willing to dull the swords.
“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.
The court has yet to rule.
In the meantime, I’d like to suggest those ballooned sumo suits as a less lethal alternative.
And please…oh, please…a live telecast.
When asked if he were 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.”
See 3 more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.