Case 18-16248-MAM Doc 117 Filed 08/05/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION IN RE CHANCE & ANTHEM, LLC, Debtor. Case No. 18-16248-MAM Chapter 7 _____________________________________/ DEBTOR’S RESPLY TO CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO RETENTION OF EX-PARTE APPLICATION OF ACCOUNTANT FILED BY JEFFREY M. SISKIND COMES NOW the Debtor, by and through undersigned counsel, and replies to the Chapter 7 Trustee’s Omnibus Response to Objections to Retention of Ex-Parte Application of Accountant Filed by Jeffrey M. Siskind (“Siskind”), and states: 1. I plan to be brief in this response because I lost my father unexpectedly yesterday, and because I am aware that this Reply is filed after the deadline imposed by our Local Rules. 2. Although the Court may not consider this Reply, it should note that it was impossible to file a timely reply due to the Chapter 7 Trustee’s Response being filed on the day of the deadline, and leave is therefore requested to permit the filing hereof. 3. Further, the filing of this response is necessary because the undersigned will not be able to be present for argument on Tuesday, August 7, 2018, and because of untruthful and unwarranted allegations made by the Trustee in its Response. 4. Contrary to the Trustee’s assertions, Siskind does not engage in the practice of trying to delay, hamper or frustrate the Trustee’s efforts to administer the bankruptcy estate. 5. Instead, it is due to the Trustee’s unfounded and untrue assertions, some of which Siskind already responded to but were re-alleged by the Trustee, that Siskind is dutybound to correct the record. Case 18-16248-MAM 6. Doc 117 Filed 08/05/18 Page 2 of 6 Contrary to the Trustee’s assertion, Siskind did provide an analysis of the value of CannaMED Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the Debtor’s only significant asset, in Docket Entry No. 59, as an attachment to Debtor’s Amended Schedules A/B. 7. The valuation provided to the Trustee, together with Siskind’s responses at the 341 Meeting of Creditors and during his interview with the Trustee, provide ample evidence to refute the Trustee’s assertion that the Debtor was nothing more than an artifice. 8. The fact that the Trustee conducted and adjourned the 341 Meeting of Creditors, which lasted approximately an hour, is testament to the manner in which the meeting was conducted, and the fact that Siskind was not at all evasive. 9. The Trustee’s inference that any failure to recall information is tantamount to evasiveness is meritless and, absent any proof of same provided by the Trustee, should be disregarded. 10. Siskind also fully explained the circumstances pertaining to missing records. 11. Most serious is the Trustee’s repeated misrepresentation of Siskind’s testimony concerning use of his attorney trust account, and the Trustee’s untruthful assertion concerning possible comingling of the Debtor’s assets. No reasonable person in attendance at the 341 meeting could interpret any answer given by Siskind as an indication of commingling. 12. It appears that while the Trustee can only benefit from Siskind’s cooperation and assistance, it instead has intentionally set out to discredit Siskind; thus the need for Siskind to continue to respond in order to insure accuracy while questioning the Trustee’s motives. 13. The Court should note that the Trustee could easily provide it with portions of the testimony form the 341 meeting for the purpose of proving its several unfounded assertions, and that the Trustee has instead made only bald assertions, thus requiring Siskind’s response and Case 18-16248-MAM Doc 117 Filed 08/05/18 Page 3 of 6 whatever costs are thereby unfortunately incurred by the Trustee. 14. Contrary to the Trustee’s assertions, the valuation shown by the Debtor proves that there may well be a surplus, thereby indicating that the Debtor has a pecuniary interest and standing, and in which instance Debtor may seek to upconvert this matter. 15. The Trustee’s assertion that the Debtor was in the medical cannabis business reveals that the Trustee lacks a coherent understanding of the Debtor’s business, which is alarming considering Siskind’s exhaustive explanations at the 341 meeting and during his interview. 16. As to the hiring of GlassRatner, Siskind’s response was meant to more fully inform creditors of factors relevant to, but was (as stated) not meant to interfere with the Trustee’s selection 17. And, to address the Trustee’s assertion that Debtor is administratively insolvent; while that alone would be reason to dismiss what the Trustee apparently believes is a no asset case, the Court should note that the Trustee therefore proceeds at its own peril and to the disadvantage of creditors, whose minimal stakes would be significantly eroded by the Trustee’s activities. 18. Finally, there is a matter which concerns possible impropriety, or the appearance thereof, which is presented by the Chapter 7 Trustee’s assignment of this matter. While the method prescribed for assignment of a Chapter 7 Trustee is by random selection, this case is missing from the report which chronologically lists assignment of all Chapter 7 Cases. Debtor filed this report at Docket Entry No. 94. 19. The undersigned questioned the Chapter 7 Trustee on this matter and was told that the Chapter 7 Trustee had nothing to do with the assignment and to make inquiry of the U.S. Case 18-16248-MAM Doc 117 Filed 08/05/18 Page 4 of 6 Trustee’s office, which inquiry has been initiated. 20. The current Chapter 7 Trustee’s participation in this case is of some concern because of comments made to numerous individuals prior to transfer from the District of Maryland concerning assurance of the appointment of Robert Furr by Steven Newburgh, who at the time was representing several creditors. 21. Obviously, if the Chapter 7 Trustee appointment process was wrongfully influenced, it taints this case and may result in creditors’ interests being harmed, and this may also help to explain why the Trustee and its counsel are to try to discredit Debtor’s counsel. WHEREFORE, The Debtor hereby files its Reply to Chapter 7 Trustee’s Omnibus Response to Objections to Retention of Ex-Parte Application of Accountant Filed by Jeffrey M. Siskind. SISKIND LEGAL ___/s/ Jeffrey M. Siskind___ Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire FBN 138746 3465 Santa Barbara Drive Wellington, FL 33414 TEL (561) 791-9565 FAX (561) 791-9581 Email: jeffsiskind@msn.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing paper will be served upon the filing hereof on all registered parties registered on CM/ECF, listed below, this 5th day of August, 2018 and by U.S. Mail upon unregistered parties shown on the attached official mailing matrix. ___/s/ Jeffrey M. Siskind___ Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire FBN 138746 Case 18-16248-MAM Doc 117 Filed 08/05/18 Page 5 of 6 18-16248-MAM Notice will be electronically mailed to: Robert C Furr danderson@furrcohen.com, rcf@trustesolutions.net John H Genovese, Esq on behalf of Trustee Robert C Furr jgenovese@gjb-law.com, hburke@gjb-law.com;gjbecf@gjblaw.com;gjbecf@ecf.courtdrive.com;jzamora@gjb-law.com Steven S Newburgh on behalf of Other Professional George W. Liebmann snewburgh@mclaughlinstern.com, ssn@newburghlaw.net;mgarcia@mclaughlinstern.com;bgonzalez@mclaughlinstern.com;nsolo mon@mclaughlinstern.com;vrhaburn@mclaughlinstern.com Steven S. Newburgh on behalf of Creditor 3485 Lago De Talavera Trust snewburgh@mclaughlinstern.com Steven S. Newburgh on behalf of Creditor Carl Stone snewburgh@mclaughlinstern.com Steven S. Newburgh on behalf of Creditor Christopher George snewburgh@mclaughlinstern.com Steven S. Newburgh on behalf of Creditor David Fiore snewburgh@mclaughlinstern.com Steven S. Newburgh on behalf of Creditor Dianna George snewburgh@mclaughlinstern.com Steven S. Newburgh on behalf of Creditor Frederick Volkwein snewburgh@mclaughlinstern.com Office of the US Trustee USTPRegion21.MM.ECF@usdoj.gov Jeffrey M Siskind on behalf of Debtor Chance & Anthem, LLC jeffsiskind@msn.com, jmsesq500@gmail.com Jesus M Suarez on behalf of Trustee Robert C Furr jsuarez@gjb-law.com, gjbecf@gjb-law.com;chopkins@gjb-law.com;jzamora@gjblaw.com;ecastellanos@gjb-law.com;gjbecf@ecf.courtdrive.com Case 18-16248-MAM Doc 117 Filed 08/05/18 18-16248-MAM Notice will not be electronically mailed to: Alan Barbee GlassRatner Advisory & Capital Group 1400 Centrepark Blvd #860 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Robert Grossbart on behalf of Creditor David Fiore Grossbart, Portney & Rosenberg One N. Charles Street. Suite 1214 Baltimore, MD 21201 Robert Grossbart on behalf of Creditor Frederick Volkwein Grossbart, Portney & Rosenberg One N. Charles Street. Suite 1214 Baltimore, MD 21201 Jeffrey Marc Siskind on behalf of Debtor Chance & Anthem, LLC Siskind Legal 3465 Santa Barbara Drive Wellington, FL 33414 Page 6 of 6