Game of Thrones just got real: Fraud-accused US lawyer asks court for 'trial by combat'

Game of Thrones fans will remember the term ’trial by combat’ very well. For the uninitiated, it is essentially a provision in George RR Martin’s universe that allows for a criminal case to be settled ‘out of court’ through one-on-one combat to death. The logic is that one’s innocence will be decided by divine powers on a battlefield. But fans of the show will know that’s not how it always turns out. Remember Oberyn Martell? [caption id=“attachment_2380158” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Richard Luthmann. Image Courtesy: Twitter @SIBPLuthmann[/caption] However, one fan of the show, a lawyer called Richard Luthmann from Staten Island, US, has decided to let the fates decide his fate in a legal case. Luthmann has demanded trial by combat to decide on a fraud case slapped on him and his client, according to SIlive.com.  His logic? “They want to be absurd about what they’re trying to do, then I’ll give them back ridiculousness in kind,” Luthmann is quoted as saying. And ‘ridiculousness in kind’ is a very apt way to put his subsequent actions. Here’s what his brief, filed in state Supreme Court, St George, and quoted by SIlive.com , says: “The allegations made by plaintiffs, aided and abetted by their counsel, border upon the criminal. As such, the undersigned (Luthmann) respectfully requests that the court permit the undersigned to dispatch plaintiffs and their counsel to the Divine Providence of the Maker for Him to exact His divine judgment once the undersigned has released the souls of the plaintiffs and their counsel from their corporeal bodies, personally and or by way of a champion.” As if this heavily-worded jargon-laden text wasn’t enough, Luthmann followed it with a 10-page brief about the history of trial by combat, from its beginnings in the Middle Ages to its presence in American history. Thankfully, he left out references to its fictional history. He supposedly argued that trial by combat was never officially outlawed in the United States or in the state of New York, where Staten Island is located. And since it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the provision is technically retained, according to a website called winteriscoming.com .  While we wait to see the court’s response to this unusual demand, we can safely say that this is what happens when someone watches too much TV!