Evidently channeling his inner "Game of Thrones" character, a Staten Island lawyer has formally requested a rather unique means to end a civil suit: A fight to the death.
Richard A. Luthmann stands accused of allegedly helping a client commit fraud. The plaintiffs Benjamin Foley, Richard Foley, Ryan McGetrick, and Brian Hale accused Luthmann of helping client David Parker hide money to avoid paying them in another civil suit. The plaintiffs had previously won judgments against Parker, winning a combined $527,000. Luthmann then allegedly told Parker to wire $50,000 to his account to place his money "beyond the reach of (his) creditors," which is a violation of law.
The supposed scam apparently worked. The plaintiffs could not collect the money awarded to them. So, they are suing Luthmann to try and recoup some of their lost award.
How Mr. Luthmann responded was completely unexpected, to say the least.
In a brief to the state Supreme Court, Luthmann outlined his argument for a trial by combat to settle their dispute:
"The allegations made by plaintiffs, aided and abetted by their counsel, border upon the criminal," Richard A. Luthmann wrote. "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."
He used 10 pages to detail the history of trial by combat. He started with the Middle Ages in England and went all the way to the founding of the Thirteen Colonies in America. Luthmann pointed out that, in 1774, British Parliament rejected a proposal to abolish the practice in the Thirteen Colonies. After the Revolutionary War, the newly-created United States failed to ban the practice in the Constitution or by the state of New York. In other words, the practice is not on the books as being unlawful and there is legal precedence for such a conclusion to the dispute.
The judge in the case will almost certainly reject the plea. But what if the judge doesn't? Could we expect something like this?