It’s not unheard of for a fight to break out at a courthouse, or on the way to or from a court hearing. People’s emotions are high, and depending on the court’s ruling, they may intensify once the gavel hits the bench. Shouting matches and physical fights are one of the unfortunate outcomes of our legal system.
In his Iowa court case, ex-husband David Ostrom decided to take a different route, and actually asked the court for permission to engage in “trial by combat” with his ex-wife, or her attorney. David and his ex Bridgette are involved in an apparently highly contested battle concerning their two children and property taxes. Obviously he’d like to seek swift justice in the matter, but only once he was adequately prepared.
While adjournments are not unusual, David’s reasoning for one was – he needed three months to secure the appropriate Japanese samurai swords for the trial. To be fair, I did some research, and making a “katana,” as the swords are called, is a very labor-intensive process, requiring multiple workers, with the polishing alone taking one to three weeks. In other words, a three month adjournment seems reasonable to me.
According to the Iowa Carroll Times Herald, Ostrom’s pleadings stated that he wanted to give Bridgette and her attorney, Matthew Hudson, “the chance to meet me on the field of battle, where I will REND THEIR SOULS from their ... bodies.” Ostrom relied on the fact that a trial by combat has not been “explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States.” Attorney Hudson requested that Ostrom’s relief be denied, noting that the risk of harm outweighed the benefit of this unusual judicial remedy. To be fair (again), he is probably right.
The court responded by telling both sides nothing was moving forward unless proper procedure was followed. In this case, Pat Benatar was wrong - love is not a battlefield.
No comments:
Post a Comment