Back when he was an attorney, Rich Luthmann gained notoriety when he proposed a trial by combat during a legal dispute.
Staten Island lawyer Richard A. Luthmann, after being sued by an opponent, invoked his “common law right to Trial By Combat as against Plaintiffs and their counsel.” See Reply Affirmation of Richard A. Luthmann, Esq., Foley v. Luthmann, No. 150175/2014 (filed Jul. 24, 2015). After characterizing the claims against him as “a glorified comic book piled on top of pure and adulterated extortion wrapped in a transparent abuse of legal process,” Luthmann recounts the history of “wager of battle” from the Norman Conquest through the present.
At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, he says, no state had outlawed trial by combat. Moreover, all had inherited British common law upon independence. The Ninth Amendment, contends Luthmann, reserved to the people all of the rights that they had at the time of ratification including, he argues, the common law right to trial by combat. Such trials were pitched on a sixty-foot square dueling ground between noon and sunset, and allowed the disputants to arm themselves with “hammers, cudgels, or quarterstaves with sharp iron tips.” The winner? The last man standing.
Rich told me that the opposite attorney accused him of fraud because his client was accused of fraud. Since he found the accusation ludicrous, he told me, he doubled down on the absurdity by challenging said lawyer to a trial by combat.
In the last episode of The Unknown, Rich said he’s dusting off his trial by combat idea.
It started when, during a recent YouTube appearance, his nemesis Jeremy Hales challenged him to a fight to the death.
“If he {Luthmann} files a motion for combat, we will not disagree,” Hales said in the broadcast.
Probably, it was said in jest, but Rich took him up on the offer, and he emailed Hales attorney, Randall Shochet, to work out the details.
Mr. Jeremy “GERM” Hales and Mr. Randy “Pocket Rocket” Shochet:
I write in response to Mr. Jeremy B. Hales’s offer and challenge to resolve our ongoing legal controversies and my claims against him through trial by combat.
I accept under the contractual doctrine of offer and acceptance. Kolodziej v. Mason, 774 F.3d 736 (11th Cir. 2014). I am proceeding under the objective assumption that Mr. Hales’ words are a “serious offer.”
If I am wrong, please let me know immediately, in writing, that what Mr. Hales says publicly - his words - cannot be considered “serious.”
I’m looking forward to formalizing the agreement and seeking judicial sanctioning (in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court) before performance, preferably in a location convenient to Central Florida and the Gulf Coast. I would suggest New Port Richey, Florida, as a neutral and convenient venue for all. That situs is roughly an hour and a half south of Otter Creek and roughly four hours north of the banks of the Calossochatchee River in Southwest Florida.
Shochet didn’t respond, but as Rich explained in the episode, that doesn’t mean he’s done.
He is planning on filing in the Middle District of Florida, and he wants a federal judge to enforce the deal.
He said this was a form of alternative dispute resolution, and it would be legally binding under federal arbitration laws.
Can a trial by combat happen? After all, wouldn’t that violate laws against murder or assault? A federal judge can’t possibly sanction murder; or can they?
Rich accounted for that. Given the obvious legal hurdles of a fight to the death, he said that a judge would probably only sanction something far less severe like a paintball match.
He said that Hales could back out by saying the offer was in jest, but then, he would argue that all his statements are in jest and not to be taken as factual.
Check out the full episode of The Unknown below.
