David Ostrom, 40, from Paola, Kansas said he would give his ex-wife Bridgette Ostrom, 38, the choice of an attorney or a "stand-in fighter" to battle him.
Hudson poked fun at his opponent's spelling error ("Surely [Ostrom] meant "corporeal" body") in a resistance filed against the trial-by-combat request, suggesting that the estranged father should receive court-mandated psychotherapy and lose his visitation rights entirely.
According to Ostrom himself, his requested motion stems from his frustrations with his ex-wife's attorney, Matthew J. Hudson.
He added that his wife, from Harlan, had 'destroyed (him) legally'.
That's what Ostrom had in mind when he submitted court filings in Iowa over a protracted child custody and money battle. In 2002, The Telegraph reported that a British court rejected a petition by 60-year-old Leon Humphreys in which he requested the opportunity to fight a champion of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency with "samurai swords, Ghurka knives or heavy hammers" instead of paying a £25 fine for driving his motorcycle off the road. Ostrom has requested the Iowa District Court located in Shelby County provide him with a twelve-week notice so that both parties can obtain their katanas and traditional Japanese weaponry. He then noted that he plans to request the same trial option for other court disputes he may encounter in the future.
He asked the court to order Ostrom undergo psychological treatment.
Hudson resisted the odd request, arguing that because a duel could end in death, "such ramifications likely outweigh those of property tax and custody issues". His ex's lawyer responded in court that just because the USA and Iowa constitutions don't specifically prohibit battling another person with a deadly katana sword - the weapon Ostrom suggested - it does prohibit a court sitting in equity from ordering same. I don't think he has the guts to do it.
Ostrom acknowledged the misspelled word in his response but continued to press for a fight. He told the Register, "I think I've met Mr. Hudson's absurdity with my own absurdity". Olstrom also explained that based on court records, trial by combat has not always ended in death.
The judge ruled Monday, Jan. 13 that he wouldn't take any action in the case because proper procedural steps had not been taken.