DUBLIN, IRELAND (April 16, 2026) — The publisher of Talk of the Sound and Words in Edgewise has received a legal demand from Irish solicitors acting on behalf of Anna & Jack’s Treehouse, LLC and Robert P. Rubicco, challenging prior reporting and seeking the removal and retraction of articles.
In the interest of transparency, the correspondence and the publisher’s response are being published in full so that readers can review the claims and underlying records.
Transparency
In the interest of transparency, the letter received from counsel and the publisher’s response are being published in full so that readers can review the claims and the underlying records for themselves.
Full Correspondence
A copy of the correspondence referenced above is provided below in its original form.
The correspondence is marked “private and confidential” by the sender and is published here in the interest of transparency and public interest reporting.
[Download Letter of Claim (PDF)]
Publication of Correspondence
The publisher has elected to address these claims publicly rather than through private correspondence. Any further communications on this subject will likewise be published.
Demand for Removal and Retraction
The letter demands that articles be removed, edited, or subject to retraction, but does not identify with specificity which statements are alleged to be false.
Those demands are not accepted.
The reporting is based on publicly available records, including court filings and regulatory inspection reports. No basis has been provided to support the removal or alteration of that reporting.
The correspondence focuses on a limited number of issues while omitting the broader body of reporting based on public records.
The reporting addresses matters of legitimate public interest and is grounded in official public records and other information in the public domain.
Tortious Interference Claim
The letter also asserts a claim of “tortious interference.”
That claim is unsupported.
Tortious interference requires intentional and improper interference with a specific business relationship. Reporting based on publicly available records and matters of public interest does not meet the elements of such a claim.
The reporting accurately reflects documented facts and does not constitute interference with any contractual or business relationship.
Public Interest
The reporting concerns the operation of licensed childcare facilities serving hundreds of families and is based on official records, including regulatory inspections and court filings. These are matters of legitimate public interest.
The specific claims raised in the letter are addressed below.
Tone
The letter takes issue with the tone of the reporting. The articles combine factual reporting based on public records with clearly expressed opinion and commentary. The underlying facts — including court filings and regulatory inspection records — are accurately reported and fully support the conclusions drawn.
OCFS Violations
The letter challenges reporting concerning violations identified by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) at Treehouse facilities.
Those claims are not supported by the regulator’s own records.
The following excerpts are taken directly from the OCFS public database.
OCFS maintains a publicly accessible database of inspection histories for licensed childcare providers. A review of those records for the relevant facilities shows multiple inspections in which “Violations Found” is recorded as the inspection result, including annual, monitoring, and fire safety inspections.
These entries include inspection dates, inspection IDs, and detailed findings tied to specific regulatory provisions. The reporting cites those records directly and reflects the findings as documented by OCFS.
Following further review, certain phrasing has been refined in limited instances to more closely track the language used in the inspection reports. The underlying findings — including repeated inspections resulting in violations — remain unchanged.
The reporting reflects the records as they existed at the time of publication and has been reviewed again in light of the issues raised.
These records are publicly available and can be independently verified in minutes.
No factual assertions were fabricated or materially misstated.
The underlying records referenced are available and can be provided upon request.
OCFS Larchmont
The letter also disputes reporting concerning violations at the Larchmont facility, including findings related to staff fingerprinting and background check requirements.
Those claims are without merit.
The following excerpts are taken directly from the OCFS public database.
OCFS records for the Larchmont facility (License/Registration ID: 909417) show multiple inspections with “Violations Found” as the recorded result, including recent inspections in 2025 and 2026. The compliance history further reflects instances of uncorrected violations as of the most recent inspection.
Among the documented violations are findings related to staff records and background check compliance, including requirements that fingerprint images be submitted for the purpose of conducting criminal history reviews, as specified under applicable OCFS regulations.
These findings are taken directly from the OCFS inspection and compliance records and are presented as such in the reporting. The articles do not rely on speculation or inference but instead reflect the regulator’s own documented findings, including the specific regulatory provisions cited.
The OCFS database allows these records to be reviewed by the public using either facility name or license number. The relevant entries can be located in minutes.
The reporting accurately reflects the regulator’s findings and remains unchanged in substance.
2013–2016 Licensing
The letter also challenges reporting concerning the licensing status of Treehouse entities during the period 2013 through 2016.
At the time of publication of the Nightmare on the Isle of Sans Souci series in 2021, publicly available OCFS records did not reflect licensing information for the current Anna & Jack’s Treehouse entity for that period. That reporting accurately reflected the state of the records available at the time.
To obtain additional information, a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request was submitted to OCFS on July 29, 2021. The final article in the series was published on December 20, 2021. After multiple extensions, OCFS did not produce responsive records until August 16, 2022, approximately eight months after the series had concluded.
By that point, the reporting had moved on to other matters. During the relevant period, Mr. Rubicco was contacted directly and did not provide documentation concerning licensing for 2013–2016.
In January 2026, a new FOIL request was submitted to OCFS seeking updated records. While reviewing previously produced materials in connection with that request, additional licensing information was identified indicating that predecessor entities held valid licenses during portions of the 2013–2016 period.
The timing and availability of government records are outside the control of the publisher. The original reporting accurately reflected the information available at the time of publication. As part of ongoing coverage, earlier articles are being updated to include this additional context.
Updated Article
Vox Funding
The letter asserts that reporting concerning the Vox Funding litigation is false, including references to the appointment of a receiver.
That characterization is not supported by the publicly available court record.
Court filings in Vox Funding, LLC v. Anna & Jack’s Treehouse LLC et al. show that the plaintiff moved to appoint a temporary receiver and submitted extensive briefing in support of that request, including detailed financial analysis alleging insolvency. The court issued an Order to Show Cause and granted temporary restraining relief restricting the defendants’ control over assets while the motion was litigated.
The publicly available NYSCEF docket reflects extensive motion practice concerning the appointment of a receiver but does not clearly show a separately entered order formally appointing a receiver. A third-party legal database (Trellis) reflects an entry indicating that the motion was granted, though that characterization is not clearly reflected in the official docket.
The reporting has been reviewed and updated where appropriate to clarify the procedural posture. It reflects the underlying litigation, including the plaintiff’s effort to obtain control over the defendants’ assets and the court’s intervention through temporary restraining relief.
Following receipt of the correspondence, Talk of the Sound conducted an additional review of the Vox Funding court record and updated certain passages to more precisely reflect the procedural posture shown in the filings, including the distinction between a requested receivership and temporary restraining relief issued by the court.
Updated Articles:
- Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator Part XXVIII ($1,396,791.60 Vox Funding Capital Merchant Cash Advance Default)
- Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator Part XXIX (Luxury Amid Defaults and Judgments)
- Words in Edgewise News Roundup — February 1, 2026
The reporting will continue to be updated as additional records become available.
The underlying records referenced are available and can be provided upon request.
Scope of Review
The letter references approximately 30 articles but does not identify them with specificity.
In response, Talk of the Sound conducted a review of the articles most reasonably understood to be at issue based on the subject matter described in the letter and has updated those articles where appropriate, as reflected above.
If counsel believes that additional specific articles contain factual inaccuracies, those articles should be identified with particularity, including the specific statements alleged to be false.
Absent such specificity, no further action can be taken.