UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

IN RE: CASE NO. 18-16248-MAM

CHANCE & ANTHEM, LLC, CHAPTER 7

Debtor.

_____________________________________/

ROBERT C. FURR.

Plaintiff,

v. ADV. NO. 19-01299-MAM

AIR CENTER, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

JEFFREY M. SISKIND’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

COMES NOW, Jeffrey M. Siskind (“Movant”) former managing member of Chance & 

Anthem, LLC (the “Debtor”), and moves to intervene in the above styled adversary case, and 

states:

1. Movant seeks to intervene in this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 which 

permits intervention of right by a party which claims an interest relating to the property or 

transaction that is the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a 

practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing 

parties adequately represent that interest, and allows permissive intervention by a Party which 

has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

2. In its complaint to claw back property from Defendant, the Trustee has grossly 

misrepresented that legitimate business transactions conducted by Movant were a ‘scheme’ by

Movant to enrich himself, The Chapter 7 Trustee knowingly made these false and scandalous

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 1 of 9
allegations, including false claims of concealment and failures to disclose by Movant, in order to

inhibit the named Defendant herein from adequately defending its interests against the Chapter 7 

Trustee’s claims.

3. Movant witnessed firsthand the employment of similar less than forthright tactics 

by this Chapter 7 Trustee in another bankruptcy matter where Movant’s client fared better than 

other defendants who allowed themselves to be bullied. These contemptuous actions are as 

suspect as still unresolved questions surrounding the manner in which the Chapter 7 Trustee 

came to be employed in this case.

4. In a transparent effort to increase its own administrative fees at the expense of 

legitimate creditors, the Chapter 7 Trustee, who purports to represent the interests of these 

creditors, has refused to recognize the value of the bankruptcy estate’s chief asset and failed to 

reject various unsupportable claims, including those made by an incarcerated felon and Robert 

Gibson, Movant’s former paralegal, whose services were terminated by Movant for illegally 

practicing law and after Movant’s discovery of said paralegal’s history of fraud and numerous 

arrests.

5. In violation of its various duties to all creditors in the bankruptcy case underlying 

this adversary matter, the Chapter 7 Trustee has failed to adequately investigate Mr. Gibson’s 

unlawful acquisition of title to a remainder interest in valuable real property, conducted with said 

Chapter 7 Trustee’s knowledge and acquiescence, and demonstrating both a lack of discretion 

and independence, and an undisclosed and disqualifying link to an individual purported creditor

which the Chapter 7 Trustee disingenuously refers to as merely a ‘relief defendant.’

6. The Chapter 7 Trustee’s unnecessary scandalous, impertinent statements and 

disregarded duties, while demonstrating a lack of discretion and candor, are an assault upon

Movant’s integrity and reputation, which Movant must be given an opportunity to defend herein, 

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 2 of 9
both on behalf of Movant and to foster a fair result with respect to the instant adversary 

defendant, and clearly outweigh any position which the Chapter 7 trustee may adopt to contest 

intervention. As required, attached is a pleading which requests that said scandalous and

impertinent language be stricken, and for clarification requesting that the Chapter 7 Trustee 

amend its instant complaint in order to adequately set forth facts which form the basis of its 

claims against Defendant herein, or admit that it lacks sufficient facts to serve as said adequate 

basis for its claims. Movant’s attached motion comports with Florida’s emphasis on truth; that 

the search for truth in litigation is paramount, as opposed to procedural “tricks and technicalities 

of the trade” as practiced by the Chapter 7 Trustee. See Cabot v. Clearwater Construction 

Co., 89 So. 2d 662, 664 (Fla.1956) and its progeny.

7. In determining whether to permit intervention, the Court must consider whether 

the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights. 

This necessarily requiring some balancing of factors, including whether an intervenor’s presence 

will elucidate matters that may assist an adversary defendant to recognize its defensive rights, 

such as conveying pertinent facts to an uninformed party that might otherwise not recognize the 

value in defending vigorously against the Chapter 7 Trustee’s colorful but unsupportable claims. 

To wit, most adversary case defendants don’t realize that a Chapter 7 trustee merely represents 

the interests of creditors and must refrain from making unnecessary and unfounded claims such 

as those made against Movant herein.

WHEREFORE, Movant requests that it be permitted to intervene, and for such other and 

further relief as appropriate.

S I S K I N D L E G A L

___/s/ Jeffrey M. Siskind___

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 3 of 9
FBN 138746

3465 Santa Barbara Drive

Wellington, FL 33414

TEL (561) 791-9565

FAX (561) 791-9581

Email: jeffsiskind@msn.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This paper, by the filing hereof on CM/ECF, is hereby served upon the Chapter 7 Trustee 

and all parties registered thereon, and by U.S. Mail upon Defendant at the address set forth on 

the attached service list, this 7

th day of September, 2019

___/s/ Jeffrey M. Siskind___

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 4 of 9
SERVICE LIST

AIR CENTER, INC. c/o David Guerrieri, PTD 1201 E. Whitcomb Avenue Madison Heights, MI 

48071 

AIR CENTER, INC. c/o Michael Clark, VSD 1201 E. Whitcomb Avenue Madison Heights, MI 

48071 

AIR CENTER, INC. c/o David Guerrieri, Registered Agent 3628 Winding Brook Circle 

Rochester Hills, Florida 48309

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 5 of 9
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

IN RE: CASE NO. 18-16248-MAM

CHANCE & ANTHEM, LLC, CHAPTER 7

Debtor.

_____________________________________/

ROBERT C. FURR.

Plaintiff,

v. ADV. NO. 19-01299-MAM

AIR CENTER, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

MOTION TO STRIKE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S SCANDALOUS,

IMPERTINENT ALLEGATIONS AND FOR CLARIFICATION

COMES NOW Jeffrey M. Siskind, Intervenor, and moves to strike the Chapter 7 trustee’s 

scandalous, impertinent allegations and for clarification, and states:

1. This pleading requests that scandalous and impertinent language contained within 

the Chapter 7 Trustee’s complaint be stricken, and for clarification of said complaint, to wit; that

the Chapter 7 Trustee amend its instant complaint in order to adequately set forth sufficient facts 

which form the basis of its claims against Defendant herein, or admit that it lacks sufficient facts 

to serve as said adequate basis for its claims.

2. The Chapter 7 Trustee inasmuch as admitted that it did not possess sufficient facts 

on which to base its allegations that the Palm Beach Post newspaper improperly equated with 

‘bilking’ of investor funds by Movant when it attempted to obtain preliminary injunctive relief 

based upon inadequate ‘summaries’ at an evidentiary hearing held in August, 2019 after nearly a 

year-long investigation into Debtor’s operations.

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 6 of 9
3. On the same date that the Chapter 7 Trustee filed this adversary action, it also 

brought an adversary complaint against Movant and others which disingenuously attempts to 

characterize two large scale development projects as a scheme to prop up Movant’s lifestyle. 

The Chapter 7 Trustee’s claims wholly ignore the Debtor’s business operations, and the 

summaries which the Chapter 7 Trustee attempted to introduce failed to include any information 

pertaining to financial contributions made by Movant, and any mention of the nearly a dozen 

individuals and numerous subcontractors whose services were employed in the execution of the 

Debtor’s development projects.

4. These considerations, combined with the Chapter 7 Trustee’s demonstrated intent 

to ignore the bankruptcy estate’s most valuable asset and instead focus on what it perceives to be 

‘easy prey’ to recover sufficient funds to cover its own administrative fees, should raise 

concerns.

5. The Court should also acknowledge that nearly all unsophisticated adversary 

complaint defendants are not readily aware of their defenses, and that thirty (30) days to respond 

to an adversary complaint is inadequate for all but those defendants which are already familiar 

with the nuances of bankruptcy. Most adversary defendants also don’t realize that a Chapter 7 

trustee’s function is to represent the interests of creditors and that the trustee is strictly limited as 

to means and methods which it can employ.

6. At first blush, the instant adversary complaint appears overwhelming. Movant 

submits that the Chapter 7 trustee specifically designed it to be so, in order that the named 

Defendant fails to protect its interests.

7. For this reason, Movant requests that all unnecessary scandalous, impertinent 

allegations be stricken, and that sufficient facts underlying the Chapter 7 Trustee’s attempt to 

recover property from Defendant be articulated in order to properly inform Defendant. Because 

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 7 of 9
the Chapter 7 trustee’s initial complaint likely improperly influenced Defendant, Intervenor also 

requests an enlargement of time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. Enlargement 

of time is also warranted by the probable lack of effective notice, inasmuch as Defendant may be 

typical of most and not know that service by U.S. Mail is sufficient. Instead, in the interest of 

judicial economy and to avoid having to undo an inadvertent default by Defendant, the Chapter 7 

Trustee should be directed to contact Defendant to explain service by U.S. Mail.

WHEREFORE, Movant requests that scandalous allegations be stricken, that the Chapter 

7 Trustee’s complaint be clarified, and that Defendant be granted an enlargement of time to 

respond once these defects are remedied.

S I S K I N D L E G A L

___/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

This paper, by the filing hereof on CM/ECF, is hereby served upon the Chapter 7 Trustee 

and all parties registered thereon, and by U.S. Mail upon Defendant at the address set forth on 

the attached service list, this 7

th day of September, 2019

___/s/ Jeffrey M. Siskind___

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 8 of 9
SERVICE LIST

AIR CENTER, INC. c/o David Guerrieri, PTD 1201 E. Whitcomb Avenue Madison Heights, MI 

48071 

AIR CENTER, INC. c/o Michael Clark, VSD 1201 E. Whitcomb Avenue Madison Heights, MI 

48071 

AIR CENTER, INC. c/o David Guerrieri, Registered Agent 3628 Winding Brook Circle 

Rochester Hills, Florida 48309

Case 19-01299-MAM Doc 10 Filed 09/07/19 Page 9 of 9