At one point, one of the allegations against me rested on an unexpected claim: that my son’s local karate school was teaching grappling to eight-year-old children.
The allegation mattered because it was used to support a broader accusation involving inappropriate physical contact. If grappling was part of the curriculum, the allegation might sound plausible. If it was not, an important part of the story collapsed.
One Simple Question
Rather than speculate, I went directly to the source.
I asked the karate instructor whether grappling was taught to children my son’s age.
The answer was immediate and unequivocal.
No.
The instructor explained that grappling was reserved for older students and was not part of the curriculum for eight-year-old children.
Putting the Facts on the Record
Because the allegation had become part of the case, I subpoenaed the karate instructor so the issue could be addressed under oath rather than through rumor or repeated accusation.
The instructor’s testimony established what I had already been told: the claim was not true.
An independent witness with no personal stake in the litigation confirmed that grappling was not taught to children of that age.
The Story Changed Again
After the allegation had been disproven, the focus shifted.
Raymond Knutsen later complained that my son could no longer attend that karate school and blamed me for “ruining it.”
That consequence did not arise because I questioned the instructor. It arose because the karate school had been drawn into a dispute through an allegation that proved to be false.
The Pattern
This was not an isolated incident.
An allegation was made. An independent source was asked to verify it. The allegation did not withstand scrutiny. Instead of acknowledging the mistake, responsibility for the consequences was shifted back onto me.
The karate school, its instructor, and a child who had done nothing wrong were unnecessarily drawn into a conflict they never asked to be part of.
