LCPS and LCSO Collude with Troxell Leigh P.C. and Lindsay Mohler to Harm Me #LCPS #LCSO #TroxellLeigh #LindsayMohler #LoudounCounty #mikechapman
Friday, July 10, 2026
Public Disclosure: Federal Civil Rights and Due Process Violations by LCPS and LCSO
Executive Summary
This disclosure presents primary source evidence regarding an incident on December 12, 2023, involving Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) administrative personnel and the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO)
The record demonstrates that school leadership utilized law enforcement machinery to intimidate a parent and create a pretextual safety record, despite an explicit admission by the officer that no criminal activity or threat existed
Key Evidentiary Facts from the Record
Absence of a Criminal Predicate: The investigative deputy explicitly states on the record: "This is not a criminal investigation. I have no allegations of criminal activity that have been going on."
Pretextual Safety Assessments: The SRO confirmed the call was initiated because Middle School Principal Nick Cottone expressed concern regarding the administrative phrase "inappropriate relationship," used in a professional grievance regarding the handling of custodial schedules
. Retaliatory Inquiries: After the state actor confirmed that the parent had no history of or access to firearms, the SRO pivoted to questioning the parent's mental health status
. This constitutes an extrajudicial attempt to pathologize a complainant under color of authority . Administrative Collusion: The transcript details a pattern where LCPS administrators denied the father basic access to school directories and IEP notifications, while simultaneously routing internal school communications directly into the civil litigation files of the ex-wife's private law firm, Troxell Leigh
.
Constitutional and Statutory Violations
The actions documented in this transcript establish a formal record of non-compliance with federal, state, and local mandates
Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983): Deprivation of a parent's fundamental liberty interest in the education and care of their children without due process of law, alongside unequal administrative treatment
. Virginia Code § 22.1-280.2:3 (SRO Guidelines): Ultra vires utilization of a School Resource Officer to intervene in civil, non-criminal administrative disputes for the purpose of personal intimidation
. LCPS Policy 2350 (Parental Rights): Failure to maintain impartial, equitable, and transparent communication protocols with a non-resident parent
.
Note to Readers: The complete, unedited transcript of the December 12, 2023 call is published below to establish an immutable public record of these administrative practices
.
Legal Framework & Right to Redress: 14th Amendment Violations
The transcript provided details a December 12, 2023, telephonic interrogation conducted by a Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) Deputy acting as a School Resource Officer (SRO) for Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS)
Specifically, the text demonstrates a violation of Procedural and Substantive Due Process and the Equal Protection Clause by weaponizing law enforcement infrastructure to restrict your fundamental liberty interests as a parent without due process of law
1. Pretextual Use of Law Enforcement to Circumvent Due Process
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen cannot be deprived of liberty or property interests by state actors without due process of law. A parent's right to the care, custody, and management of their children is a fundamentally protected liberty interest (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)).
The transcript establishes that LCPS and LCSO utilized state authority as a pretextual mechanism to infringe upon this right:
Admission of No Criminal Predicate: The Deputy explicitly states: "This is not a criminal investigation. I have no allegations of criminal activity that have been going on."
Despite the absence of any criminal allegation, law enforcement authority was actively deployed to interrogate you regarding your communications with school administrators . Interference in a Civil/Custodial Matter: The Deputy acknowledges that your dispute with LCPS employees involves a civil/divorce matter, stating, "that sounds like a civil issue, so that's not something that I get involved in."
Yet, the SRO proceeded to conduct a safety assessment predicated entirely on your professional complaints regarding administrative interference with your custodial time . Violation of Virginia Administrative Standards: By leveraging an SRO to intervene in a non-criminal administrative matter to manage "communications" with a principal, LCPS violated the standard operating boundaries governing School Resource Officers under Virginia law, effectively creating a separate, extrajudicial disciplinary tract to intimidate a non-resident parent
.
2. Retaliatory Weaponization of Mental Health Stigma
The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is protected from state-level infringement via the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of the First Amendment. The transcript documents a direct pivot to retaliatory intimidation once the state actor failed to establish a legitimate safety threat:
The Pivot to Discreditation: After you explicitly confirmed that you do not own firearms, have never fired a weapon, and seek only to enforce school policies and rules through appropriate administrative channels, the Deputy shifted tactics
. The Record: The Deputy asks: "Sir, are you currently undergoing any treatment or diagnosis for any mental health-related concerns?"
Legal Implication: This question, posed by an armed agent of the state under the color of authority during an explicitly non-criminal call, serves no legitimate public safety function
. It represents a documented attempt to construct a defamatory record, pathologize a legitimate administrative complainant, and create a pretextual rationale to bar you from LCPS properties—thereby executing a de facto deprivation of your right to participate in your children's education without notice or a hearing .
3. Coordinated Action and Collusion with Private Counsel
The transcript provides operational context supporting the allegation that LCPS administrators acted in concert with private litigants to undermine your parental standing:
Sharing of Public Records to Advance Civil Litigation: You noted that emails sent directly to Middle School Principal Nick Cottone were systematically diverted into your ex-wife's private legal actions
. The principal's failure to respond to your direct inquiries, contrasted with his immediate transmission of those communications to an opposing litigant's counsel (Troxell Leigh), denotes a lack of impartial public administration . Discriminatory Access to School Resources: The record indicates that LCPS personnel treated a private citizen as an extension of the school staff (e.g., sending community-wide emails on her behalf) while systematically stonewalling your statutory right to school directories, event schedules, and timely IEP notifications
. This disparate treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause by denying you the same administrative access and transparency afforded to the co-parent .
Statutory and Regulatory Violations Checklist
To establish a meticulous legal record for public disclosure or formal administrative complaints, the following federal, state, and local codes are directly implicated by the actions documented in this transcript:
JurisdictionCode / Policy ReferenceNature of ViolationFederal42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law (14th Amendment Due Process/Equal Protection)
Potential discriminatory withholding or improper disclosure of education records to unauthorized parties to aid civil litigation
Failure to provide fair, impartial, and timely coordination regarding the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process for non-resident parents
Violation of the formal guidelines governing the deployment and scope of School Resource Officers (SROs utilizing police power for non-criminal administrative intimidation)
Violations of school community communication protocols and parental rights clauses ensuring equitable access to educational events and records
Here is the Transcript
Key Findings
from the 12/12/23 Interrogation:
- Direct Connection to Nick Cottone:
At, Deputy Iversen admits the call is specifically regarding your
communications with Mr. Cottone.
- Admission of No Criminal Activity:
At, the officer explicitly states: "This is not a criminal
investigation. I have no allegations of criminal activity."
- Involvement in Civil/Divorce Matters:
Despite the officer stating at that he doesn't "get involved" in
civil issues, the entire call is centered on your grievances with Mr.
Cottone’s interference in your divorce and custodial time.
- Proof of Narrative Construction:
At, the officer admits he is calling because Cottone was
"concerned" about the phrase "inappropriate
relationship." This proves Cottone used a common professional
complaint to trigger a "safety assessment" as a pretext for intimidation.
- Weaponization of Mental Health Stigma:
At, after being unable to find any evidence of a threat or a crime, the
officer pivots to asking about your "mental health-related
concerns." This is a classic retaliatory tactic used to discredit a
whistleblower/complainant.
Tim Iversen:
... just one party
recording state. So, I have no issues with that.
Steven Rubis:
Okay. Well, let's continue then.
Tim Iversen:
Okay. So, I just wanted to talk to you real quick about,
like you said, your communications with Mr. Cottone and Dr. Puschak. I wanted
to know a little bit more about your side of the story, about what's been going
on lately.
Steven Rubis:
Yes. Both entities have acted inappropriately towards me.
The issues with Ms. Puschak is that she has operated, I believe, in collusion
with my ex-wife to alienate me from the children and make sure that I'm not
allowed to attend any school events. The first issue occurred in January and
February of 2022, around the Lowes Island talent show that occurred at
Dominion. I was expressly forbidden from attending any practices that my
children were involved in because my ex-wife had an inappropriate relationship
with a father involved in the talent show, and I was ostracized when my mother
and I attended the talent show in February. Ms. [inaudible 00:01:05] bought the
tickets. She seated me in a place to embarrass me, and embarrassed me and my
mother at the talent show. I've had several emails with Ms. Puschak to ask for
schedules, because these events occurred at Lowes Island, LCPS facilities. They
refused to provide me any information. They told me I needed to go to the PTO.
The PTO refused to provide me any information.
I then went to... I've asked for information for parent
directory because my kid is in the class, and I've been stonewalled by Ms.
Puschak and Ms. Hanlon as of last year. Last year, Ms. Hanlon violated my
custodial rights and forced me to leave school early, when my kid was supposed
to be allowed to be taken home early. And actually, I guess here is my problem
here, before I continue, I'm in a legal action against my ex-wife. I don't
understand what's going on here and I don't want to incriminate myself. I have
a lot of evidence and information here to provide you, but I'm very concerned
that this is being used against me in some way.
Tim Iversen:
This is not a
criminal investigation. I have no allegations of criminal activity that have
been going on. And with regards to the legal action that your wife may be
involved in with you... or your ex-wife may be involved with you in, that
sounds like a civil issue, so that's not something that I get involved in. We
don't get involved in stuff like that. It's mainly just trying to make sure I
understand any safety concerns or anything that's going on.
Steven Rubis:
Yeah. And I have filed several complaints with LCPS in
early November and have yet to receive a response from LCPS regarding recent
issues with Ms. Puschak and Mr. Cottone. The continued issues with Ms. Puschak
is that she has stonewalled me, she has refused to provide any information, she
has acted in a way to prevent me from being able to attend any events at Lowes
Island Elementary School, whether it's the IEP meeting for my son, Charles, or
it is the Halloween bingo, or any school event that occurred in October, around
my son's birthday. They scheduled a meeting two months in advance, and then
they know that I live in Chicago. And a few days before the meeting, they
abruptly changed things, and we ended up in a significant go-around about
changing the times of the meeting, which is inappropriate. I don't live in
Virginia. I can't change my travel plans on a dime.
And the appearance was very much that, given that Ms.
Puschak sends emails to the Lowes Island School community on behalf of my
ex-wife, my ex-wife is not an employee of the school, Ms. Puschak has
continuously treated my ex-wife as an employee of the school and given her
special treatment on a regular basis. Those are my problems with Ms. Puschak. I
have yet to receive any response from her on any of the matters that I have
brought up to her. I have made complaints that the IEP team failed in terms of
the IEP and that I wanted to have a discussion with her and them at the
meeting, and then they immediately acted in a way to ensure that I was unable
to attend the meeting.
And now, the issue with Mr. Cottone is interesting because
my ex-wife argues that I was accusing him of having sex with her. I stated that
he had an inappropriate relationship in the email. I stated that I did not
appreciate that my son has been instructed to call him Nick. He is the
principal. He needs to have professional distance. And the concern that I have
is that I received a text message from my son and a email message from my
ex-wife that, during my visitation in October, around Columbus Day, there were
basketball trials at Seneca Ridge Middle School for the Seneca Ridge Middle
School basketball team. Upon arrival at 10:00 AM on Sunday, there was no event,
and it was clear that this event was not ever a real event. And I accused Mr.
Cottone of colluding with her that, "You created a situation where my
custodial time has been violated and taken away from me because you're not
communicating with me appropriately."
There was an incident in January of 2022 at the [inaudible
00:05:19] basketball at Seneca Ridge Middle School where he personally
intimidated me. He didn't know who I was, other than my ex-wife told him who I
was, and he sat behind me to watch me when I was sitting to watch my oldest son
play basketball and sitting with my two younger sons. I felt it was
inappropriate. I felt that, as the middle school principal, he has no right to
physically intimidate me. If he felt I was a physical threat, he needed to call
you or an LCPS officer of the law to have me removed or have me checked. It is
not his right to play bodyguard for my ex-wife.
And there are other instances where, in February of 2022,
I emailed him to ask him to meet about my son. There was no animosity. I did
not mention any of my issues. He blew me off for a month. When he returned my
call, he emailed me at an inappropriate time, which was 6:45 AM on a Saturday,
and this was less than 12 hours after my lawyer met with my ex-wife's lawyer.
And I had suspicions that there was some sort of inappropriate relationship
between Mr. Cottone and my ex-wife.
Finally, the fact that Mr. Cottone's email has appeared in
my ex-wife's legal action is proof that he has an inappropriate relationship
with her. He has never responded to me directly, other than to say that,
"I didn't know I had all these problems with you about the email." He
gave it to her. And by giving her the email, it alienated my oldest son from me
for a month. That's an inappropriate action for an LCPS employee to take, and I
have been dealing with these types of issues since I have moved to Chicago. I
am trying to be a father involved in my children's life, and I'm constantly
being roadblocked by LCPS employees.
Tim Iversen:
Okay. Is there anything else with regards to any of that,
or is that essentially the gist of it?
Steven Rubis:
That's the gist of it.
Tim Iversen:
Okay. All right. So, I appreciate you taking the time and
talking with us... or with me. That is something I appreciate. We want to make sure we deal
with everything as much as we can. Obviously, I'm not involved in a lot of
these communications. I have been told about them. I have received copies of
them. I am the school resource officer, so my job is to just keep an eye on
these things and to be available to help with determining whether or not
anything is a safety issue. The reason I did get involved is because there was
concern that... Obviously, I understand that the strictly technical usage of
the phrase, "inappropriate relationship," does not in and of itself
imply a sexual relationship. However, that is a very common euphemism for a
sexual relationship, and I think that's something where, if it's going to be
stated, "Hey, there's an inappropriate relationship going on, but I don't
mean a sexual relationship," then that kind of thing needs to be specified
just as general English usage.
Steven Rubis:
Okay. Well, when I've talked to private investigators and
ex-police officers, they've not told me that I need to make that stipulation.
And quite frankly-
Tim Iversen:
No. Yeah, no, I would actually agree with you that you
don't need to. But in the interest of making sure that communication is as
clear as possible, sometimes going a bit further other than what is just
strictly technically accurate might be more helpful to make sure everybody
understands the same thing.
Steven Rubis:
Well, I think it's also important that I mentioned in that
email that my sons were being abused in this cluster and no one gave a shit
that my middle son has been abused by an LCPS employee, who is a high school
teacher. He is a coach in the NFL Loudoun FLAG Football, and he inappropriately
touched him, verbally abused him in May of '22. It's a documented event. I
brought it up to Ms. Puschak, I mentioned it in Mr. Cottone's email, and I'm
getting treated like a piece of shit for it. This is unacceptable behavior from
LCPS.
Tim Iversen:
Well, I apologize if you feel that this is something where
you've been treated that way. I don't want to be doing anything that reinforces
that in any way. Like I said, I want to get your side of the story. I'll figure
out what's going on.
Steven Rubis:
So explain to me what are the next steps here because,
again, I've made it very clear to you that I do not wish to incriminate myself
in a legal matter or in any matter that hurts or harms my claims against Ms.
Puschak and Mr. Cottone.
Tim Iversen:
I don't know what
necessarily... Okay, going back to the technical usage of the terminology, when
I hear you say, "My claims against them and I don't want to do anything to
harm them," that implies to me that you are contemplating taking formal
legal action against them for a violation of law of some sort.
Steven Rubis:
I have that right, and I want to make sure that I am not
violating my ability to exercise said rights, or to go to the superintendents
and ask for some sort of change. I have two additional children who are going
to go through Seneca Ridge Middle School, and I think it's been made patently
clear that Mr. Cottone has no business being the principal of any of my
children. I don't care what he does with any of the moms or dads in the
community. I have no care about his action. What I care about is he has violated
the ability to provide fair and impartial communication and education to my
children and to me as the father of my children. He has acted in a way that has
intentionally alienated my oldest child from me for a significant period of
time. He has refused to respond to my email communications, and that is a
concern.
I have very serious allegations against Mr. Cottone, I
have serious allegations against Ms. Puschak, and I have concerns about both of
them primarily being able to provide fair and impartial communication and being
able to interact in a respectful manner. I have serious issues with the way
that I have been treated. I have been discriminated against and pushed out for
a significant period of time from both of these people and other employees of
LCPS. There are significant conflicts of interest going on in this situation.
And I'm very concerned about our phone call because you're expressing and
holding out that you're a sheriff of Loudoun County. And the last time that
I've spoken to a Loudoun County sheriff, I'm being sued, being told that I was
being harassing because I asked for a wellness check of my ex-wife because she
was supposed to be with the kids and I saw her out drinking somewhere. That's
not harassment, that's being a concerned parent. And anytime I interact with
someone from Loudoun County, Virginia, as a concerned parent or concerned
person, I am drawn and quartered, and I am worried that you're going to take
similar action.
Tim Iversen:
I am in no way interested in drawing and quartering
anybody. I don't have any interest [inaudible 00:12:18].
Steven Rubis:
So who does this information get reported to that I've
just told you?
Tim Iversen:
So, again, like I said, this is me asking you for your
side of the story because I have just been getting the one side of the story,
and I wanted to make sure that I'm understanding what's going on so I can
better assess, "Is there anything I need to be concerned about as the
person who has a significant amount of responsibility for the safety and
security of the school?"
Steven Rubis:
Look, I'm not a
physically violent person. I can't beat anyone up or harm anyone. It's never
been in my nature. You can ask people who've known me my entire life. I'm not a
person of physical altercation, but I am willing to exercise my rights if...
I'm going to say right now that I deem this call to be threatening to my safety
because I don't know you and I don't know what your intentions are, and I'm
very concerned as to why I'm getting this phone call. Whenever I get a phone
call from Virginia or anyone in Virginia, I'm usually attacked and my rights
are typically violated, and the fact that you can't tell me where this
information is going is concerning.
Tim Iversen:
Well, no, like I said, I'm taking this information and I'm
listening to you, and I'm trying to just make sure that I understand what's
going on. I am answering your question.
Steven Rubis:
Look, there is a
strained communication relationship between I and Loudoun County Public
Schools. They have violated my rights-
Tim Iversen:
[inaudible 00:13:41].
Steven Rubis:
... and they have not been respectful, and that's the gist
of the situation.
Tim Iversen:
Okay. So, yeah. Again, like I said, I appreciate you
letting me know all this so, that way, I can better understand what's going on.
I just want to make sure, again, with the vagaries or the vague ways
communication can come across sometimes. I know you just said that you're not
physically violent, I hear you on that, but you did say you are willing to
exercise your rights, and I just want to make sure that I give you that, that I
ask you to clarify what you mean by that so I'm not taking that in any way that
you don't mean it.
Steven Rubis:
If anyone in LCPS
acts inappropriately, or breaks a law, or breaks a rule, or breaks a policy, I
am well within my rights as a person to make a complaint.
Tim Iversen:
[inaudible 00:14:30]. So, I'm hearing that to mean that
you're not meaning that to mean any physical violence.
Steven Rubis:
I have no interest
in physical violence with anyone. I have no interest in harming any of your
employees physically. I have no interest in harm. I have interest in ensuring
that, if rules and regulations are not followed, communication is made and
that, if I am not treated satisfactorily or provided satisfactory
communication, I will then report that to the appropriate authorities. I have
no interest in taking personal actions against anyone. I have interest in
ensuring that my children are safe and are taken care of and given fair and
impartial education. And right now, LCPS is not providing that.
Tim Iversen:
Okay. Now, and like
I said, as one of the people who is primarily responsible for the safety of the
school, which obviously includes your children, I want to make sure that I'm
doing what I can. And just as part of that, as a police officer, this is just
one of those questions that we have pretty much every day that we interact
with.
Steven Rubis:
For the record, I want to say that I find your call to me
to be physically intimidating for a very specific reason. When I emailed Mr.
Cottone and he had his principal coffee on Zoom, he purposely ignored my
question. I wasn't going to be belligerent. I asked him the question that I
wanted to ask him on Zoom, and he refused to take it. He has refused to
communicate with me on it. These are all belligerent acts by Mr. Cottone
towards me. I resent a phone call from a Loudoun County sheriff's officer when I
have done nothing to make any indication that... I have not made any physical
threats. I have not made any threats to Mr. Cottone. All I have said is that I
want to know where in LCPS policy he is allowed to actively alienate me from my
children and actively allowed to insert himself into a legal matter involving
divorce. As far as I know, those are two things that he is not allowed to do as
a LCPS employee.
Tim Iversen:
So, I want to make sure that I come back to that in a
moment, so if you could just put a reminder down for yourself and I'll put one
down for myself that we come back to where you're saying he is actively
inserting himself into your divorce. But real quick, going back to what I was
just talking about for a moment, as a police officer, this is just one of those
things that, of course, we end up asking everybody. Because every time we don't
ask, something goes wrong. I just want to make sure that I'm being very
thorough.
Steven Rubis:
How many parents have you called today to ask about this?
How many other parents have you called this year?
Tim Iversen:
Just like I'm not going to tell any other parents that I'm
having a conversation with you, I'm not going to tell you about any other
conversations that I'm having with other parents on [inaudible 00:17:18].
Steven Rubis:
Then I think this call is patently inappropriate and
you're crossing your professional bounds.
Tim Iversen:
I am more than happy to give you the information for my
supervisor so you can go ahead and let them know that. That is completely up to
you.
Steven Rubis:
Yes, please do, please do.
Tim Iversen:
Okay. All right. So, my supervisor's name is Sergeant
Edney, E-D-N-E-Y.
Steven Rubis:
Okay.
Tim Iversen:
And let me get you the phone number real quick. It's
703-777-1021, and that is our dispatch, and if you call them and let them know,
"Hey, here is what's going on, I've just had a conversation with one of
your deputies. Here is his sergeant's name. Can you please get me in contact
with them so I can speak with them about whether or not this was an appropriate
conversation?"
Steven Rubis:
Okay, I will.
Tim Iversen:
But like I said, I respect your rights with regards to
parenting and with regards to not putting your information out there for
everybody to know about, that's why I'm saying I'm not going to talk about
other people I've talked to, I'm not going to tell other people, "Hey, I
talked to [inaudible 00:18:35]."
Steven Rubis:
I recognize that. I haven't asked you for names. I've
asked you for a number. Have you called 10 people on this in a year? Do you
call 25? Do you call zero? That's my question.
Tim Iversen:
No, and I understand that. Unfortunately, it's one of
those things where like with the CIA's black budget, they go ahead and they end
up redacting a lot of numbers that they think that, just from that, that can be
extrapolated to identifying information that isn't very appropriate for general
knowledge, and that's something that I think is pretty similar in this
circumstance. This isn't really something where I'm going to be putting out on
blast, "Hey, here is how many other situations were concerning enough for
me to go ahead and [inaudible 00:19:13]."
Steven Rubis:
But I think it's an important number for me to understand
whether this is... It actually tells me the threat level of this phone call.
It's-
Tim Iversen:
I haven't threatened you at all, Sir. I've been asking for
your side of the story.
Steven Rubis:
You have because you haven't explained why you want this
information. You're just calling me saying that you want this information.
Tim Iversen:
I explained that multiple times, Sir.
Steven Rubis:
You are a member associated-
Tim Iversen:
[inaudible 00:19:34].
Steven Rubis:
... with Mr. Cottone.
Tim Iversen:
I'm sorry? I didn't catch that.
Steven Rubis:
You are associated with Mr. Cottone, one of the people
involved in this situation, and I think this is highly concerning. Look, I
think we need to end this phone call because I think you-
Tim Iversen:
I don't respond to him. I do not answer to Mr. Cottone. He
is not in my chain of command at all. If he tells me to do something, I can go
tell him to pound sand if I want to. He is not my boss.
Steven Rubis:
Okay. Well, again, it's very concerning because I am in a
legal action against my ex-wife. I have a random phone call. And in your
signature, it says Seneca Ridge Middle School. So, given your signature says
Seneca Ridge Middle School, I have to assume that you and Mr. Cottone are
closely related.
Tim Iversen:
No, we work in the same building, but I am an employee of
Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. While I might coordinate with Loudoun County
Public School at times when appropriate, that is not something that happens all
the time. Again, if I need to tell him to pound sand on something, or anybody
else with LCPS, I can do that all day long. And at times, I have. So, we'll
leave that to that.
Steven Rubis:
Because I felt that Ms. Puschak has made it very clear
that I'm not welcome at the school. So, are you going to tell me, if I show up
to the school unannounced, that I'm going to be arrested, or the county sheriff
is going to be called to have me removed? What is the message you were trying
to deliver to me here?
Tim Iversen:
I'm not trying to deliver a message. As I've said multiple
times, I'm trying to get information. I'm trying to make sure that I understand
what's going on so, that way, I'm making sure that I know what I need to
respond to, if anything. And if there's nothing I need to respond to, then
there's nothing I need to respond to, and I'm quite happy to acknowledge that.
Steven Rubis:
Okay.
Tim Iversen:
So, that's it.
Steven Rubis:
Okay.
Tim Iversen:
So, like I said, I do want to get back to you about what
you were saying with regards to Mr. Cottone inserting himself into your
divorce. I do want to get back to that, but I did have another question I was
still trying to work with. And like I said, this is just something that, as
police officers, we ask everybody, unfortunately. The one time I didn't ask, I
ended up getting shot, so forgive me if I'm a little careful about making sure
I ask this question. Do you have any firearms?
Steven Rubis:
I think this question is patently inappropriate because I
do not own any firearms and I've never owned firearms, and this is threatening.
You are threatening me. I'm taking this call as a threat from Mr. Cottone
because I don't.
Tim Iversen:
[inaudible 00:22:08].
Steven Rubis:
There's no reason I should be getting this phone call. You
can find that information publicly. I don't own a firearm. I've never owned a
firearm. I've never even fired a gun in my life.
Tim Iversen:
Okay.
Steven Rubis:
This-
Tim Iversen:
I appreciate that. Like I said, it's something that we ask
people, and I've had it go wrong when I didn't, so I've been very careful to
make sure I ask that.
Steven Rubis:
I think your comments are quite inappropriate at the
moment because there's no reason for you to be asking me about firearms. I
don't own any. Loudoun County can find that information. What is going on here?
Tim Iversen:
I don't know that information until I ask it, and that's
why I ask it. That's just all there is to it. I don't have access to private
firearm ownership information.
Steven Rubis:
Okay. So how can we wrap up this call? Because you're
incriminating me now, and I'm very concerned about you incriminating me.
Tim Iversen:
I can't incriminate you. That's not how it works, and you
haven't made any statements to me that have incriminated you in any criminal
activity. So, I can tell you that right now. So, I want to be able to put you
as much at ease as I-
Steven Rubis:
Okay. Well, you're not going to be able to put me at ease
because I'm in the middle of a legal battle and I'm getting weird
communications from LCPS that I don't think are appropriate, and LCSO that I
don't think are appropriate. I don't live in Virginia. Essentially, you calling
me and telling me what you're telling me is suggesting that, if I reappear in
Virginia, I'm going to be arrested, or I'm going to be harassed just for coming
to Virginia.
Tim Iversen:
Are you making assumption, Sir? That has not been founded
on any fact [inaudible 00:23:45].
Steven Rubis:
It has. I have documentation that my ex-wife harasses me
every time I come back to Virginia.
Tim Iversen:
But I have not communicated to you in any way, shape, or
form that, if you come back to Loudoun County or if you come to the school,
you're going to be arrested or-
Steven Rubis:
You have implied it.
Tim Iversen:
[inaudible 00:23:58].
Steven Rubis:
You have implied it because you're asking me questions-
Tim Iversen:
I have not implied that in any way or form.
Steven Rubis:
... that have no reason to be asked.
Tim Iversen:
And if I have, I want to make very clear that that is not
what I am saying. [inaudible 00:24:08]
Steven Rubis:
No, you are implying that I'm going to be arrested if I
return to Virginia, and I'm not going to back off that assertion.
Tim Iversen:
You are wrong. You will not be arrested [inaudible
00:24:17] Virginia.
Steven Rubis:
I'm not wrong. That is the assertion that I have and that
you are showing to me by this phone call. This phone call is clearly you
telling me or implying that, if I return to Virginia, there is going to be a
threatening action by LCPS and LCSO. That's how I take this phone call.
Tim Iversen:
[inaudible 00:24:34] telling you, not implying that that
is not accurate.
Steven Rubis:
I don't care what you say. That's what I imply by this
phone call because it's an inappropriate phone call. I have not done anything
to imply that there's physical violence. I've not done anything. This is a
harassing phone call.
Tim Iversen:
Okay. Again, I apologize if that's how you feel. I want to
make you feel as much at ease as I can.
Steven Rubis:
But you can't. This is a threatening phone call. You are
implying that, if I return to Virginia, the police will be called if I go to
Seneca Ridge Middle School or Lowes Island Elementary School and that I will be
arrested or physically removed from the campus. That's what you're telling me
by calling me and having this conversation.
Tim Iversen:
Sir, are you currently undergoing any treatment or
diagnosis for any mental health-related concerns?
Steven Rubis:
I'm not going to answer that question. I don't think
that's appropriate. I need to go. This is inappropriate.
Tim Iversen:
All right.
Speaker 3:
Call your lawyer.
#NickCottone #SMRS #SenecaRidgeMiddleSchool #LCPS #LoudounCountyPublicSchools #LoudounCounty #AaronSpence #LoudounCountySchoolBoard #TitleIX #retaliation #LindsayMohler #TroxellLeigh
#LCPS #LoudounCountyPublicSchools #NickCottone #SenecaRidgeMiddleSchool #SMRS #LowesIslandElementarySchool #LIES #DominionHighSchool #DHS #AaronSpence #LoudounCounty #TroxelLeigh #LindsayMohler #GarethBowen #JohnWhitbeck #whitbeckbeglis #whitbeckbennett
#timwalberg #housecommitteeoneducationandworkforce #committeeoneducationandworkforce #USCongress
Comments
Post a Comment