Boots Asensio's Brokerage
(click for details)
His record with the courts is particularly striking. It includes a warrant for his arrest issued after he failed to appear in court on minor traffic violations. Then there is the court order imposing a $1000 fine for every day that he continued to defy an earlier order. Not to mention repeated sworn statements that contradict public records, previous assertions, or his own actions.
Here is a closer look at his legacy of no-shows;
his noncompliance with rules of Florida's Secretary of State; and an excerpt
from the trial that became a circus once Asensio took the stand.
In August, 1980, Asensio was cited in Broward County, Florida for speeding and driving without a license. A court date was set for the following month. But Asensio did not appear. As a result, the court issued a warrant for his arrest. It still lists the case as open.
Five years later, also in Broward County, Asensio
sued a company called National Business Communications.
But when his case was scheduled in court, neither he nor National Business
bothered to show up. The case was dismissed for Asensio's failure to pursue
But the case came back to haunt him. In March, 1998, a reporter for the New York Times asked him about the $248,250 that the jury awarded to plaintiff Murphy. Asensio told her the verdict was a "default judgment" that resulted from his failure to respond to Murphy's suit. But why did he not respond? Among other things, he said he had never been served with the lawsuit.
Never served? Only a few months later, Asensio was in court asking that the verdict be set aside. Not because he hadn't been served, but because he had been--by a process server who was not licensed at the time that he delivered the papers.
Which suggests that Asensio was not exactly
forthcoming with the New York Times. And once again without a
credible explanation for his conduct.
Records of the Florida Secretary of State show a similar pattern. The Secretary's office administers state laws governing corporations registered in Florida.
According to its records, between 1982 and 1987, four new companies registered Asensio as president or director. All apparently ran afoul of state requirements before long and were involuntarily dissolved--most likely for failing to file an annual report. They were:
Equity Development Corporation. Founded by Asensio in 1982, it was involuntarily dissolved by the state a year later. Nonetheless, Asensio still reports it as a current employer on his NASD broker record.
Viceroy Securities. Originally named First Boca Raton Investment Corporation, Viceroy was founded by Asensio in 1983. It was involuntarily dissolved in 1984, then reinstated after filing the required annual report. The following year later it was involuntary dissolved again, apparently for good.
Cellular Mobility Corporation. Asensio and a colleague were listed as directors when this company was founded in 1983. It was involuntarily dissolved the following year.
M.P. Asensio & Company. Founded in 1987 by Asensio and his
attorney, Peter Snyder, this firm filed its first annual report in
1988. A year later, it was involuntarily dissolved.
It's one thing to be absent from the courtroom when you shouldn't be. It's quite another to engage in exchanges like the ones Asensio had with Judge Albert Sheppard during the Hemispherx trial.
Here is the story as told by reporter L. Stuart Ditzen, in his article, "Ill Will."
___________________________________________________________________ The Order granting
plaintiff’s request for a new trial was based predominantly on the
prejudicial misconduct of defendant, Manuel P. Asensio, manifested by his
complete disregard for this court’s authority . . .
The Order granting plaintiff’s request for a new trial was based predominantly on the prejudicial misconduct of defendant, Manuel P. Asensio, manifested by his complete disregard for this court’s authority . . .
Further, Mr. Asensio directly attacked
plaintiff’s counsel and tried to implicate them in some alleged fraud and/or
crime being perpetrated by plaintiff . . .
He also criticized plaintiff’s counsel
for taking his deposition, contending that it constituted harassment and
duress because of the length of it.