Asensio Exposed!                                                     
       Warning: may contain loud, rattling skeletons

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

  Asensio Makes Threat in Effort to Shut Us Down!

 NASD Boots Asensio's Brokerage  (click for details)
                       
 Both Now Expelled from Securities Industry
                                                                                                           
 
Welcome to Asensio.CoN    Asensio.CoN Part Two  (7/06)                       

   12/28/07  Revised & Updated Asensio FAQ
 
  03/18/06  The Elgindy Files (new items 2/07/06; 3/19/06; 3/22/06; 07/14/06; 12/18/07)                              
   
 05/05/04  Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Verdict Against Asensio
   04/04/04  Asensio Charged Again
  
 01/11/04  Bill Wexler Update
  
12/24/03  How Asensio Duped Regulators                                                                            
  
     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Site Updates
He Tries to Silence Us
RIP Integral Securities
Asensio.CoN Website
Asensio.Con Part 2
"Barred" from Industry
NASD:Unfit to Regulate
Unfit to Regulate Pt 2
NASD Plot Thickens
Is NASD Corrupt?
Is NASD Corrupt Pt 2
How He Duped NASD
1989 Fraud Verdict
2002 Fraud Verdict
Hedge Fund Flack
Hedge Fund Flack Pt 2
Asensio FAQ
Asensio FAQ #2
Who Writes the Script?
Review of Sold Short
His Clients
Long/Short Strategy
Asensio Under Oath
Dissing the Courts
Who is Bill Wexler?
Who is Bill Wexler Pt 2
Bill Wexler Update
His Doctored Record
Reading Room
Contact Regulators
Reader Comments
Feedback
New Link Bar
New Link Bar 2

 
 

Dissing the Courts

Asensio portrays himself as a crusader against "crooks" and "frauds."  Yet, his own history is replete with disregard for rules--of the NASD, government agencies, and even the courts.

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. 

A Repeated No-Show

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 it.

In 1988, client Norman Murphy sued Asensio for fraud and deceit.  And where was he when the case went to trial the following year?  Apparently, absent again.

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.

"Involuntarily Dissolved"

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 SecuritiesOriginally 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.

Asensio in the Courtroom 

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 trial began skidding out of control on Feb. 12. That was the day Asensio took the witness stand.

In words penned later by Hemispherx lawyer Dave Franceski, the proceeding became a "complete circus."

Asensio went into "hostile adversarial" mode and started expressing some fiery opinions. Even about the judge. To the judge.

He said: "Your rulings are very questionable. ... You're totally biased and it's obvious. ... You've caused me unnecessary expense. ... You've allowed them to defraud the public."

[Judge] Sheppard tried being nice. With the jury out of the room, he said:

"Mr. Asensio, listen ... I don't care what you think of me personally. But you have to have some respect for this robe. ... You have no right to be disrespectful to a court. You can be disrespectful to me as a person, I don't care."

"I'm not being disrespectful to you personally," Asensio replied. "This is not personal. This is business. ... You have trampled upon the law for the purposes of harming me and assisting them. ... You have done things here that are illegal."

Sheppard: "Mr. Asensio ... I can't let myself get angry and overreact. I'm begging you to behave yourself at least until you get your testimony on the record."

"Change your rulings," Asensio stormed. "Change those rulings and I'll play your game. ... Change them, your honor. Change them."

"Mr. Asensio, you've said this three or four times and I've made my rulings. Now - "

"OK! So you will not change your rulings? Then don't expect me to condescend."

Asensio's lawyers led him away as he shouted: "I will not be silenced, your honor! I will not be silenced!"

___________________________________________________________________

Update:  June 8, 2003

"To not grant a new trial would be a miscarriage of justice."                 

A few months after the trial, Judge Albert Sheppard decided that Asensio's conduct had badly prejudiced the case.   He ordered a new trial--and held under advisement a request that he order Asensio to pay Hemispherx's legal fees for the first one.  

Asensio appealed the decision to a higher court, which could rule at any time.   Meanwhile, the site has obtained Judge Sheppard's explanation of his decision--and excerpts it here.

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 . .  .

While on the witness stand, defendant Asensio continually questioned this court’s rulings and engaged in behavior which was improper, lacked basic courtroom etiquette, was contumacious and formed the basis for this court’s granting of a new trial because his misconduct can only be construed as extremely prejudicial to the plaintiff . . .  

First, Asensio repeatedly questioned this court’s rulings in front of the jury . . . Mr. Asensio also explicitly accused the court of bias in front of the jury. . . In addition, Mr. Asensio failed to follow basic courtroom etiquette.  He would not answer questions when directly asked by plaintiff’s counsel, his own attorneys or the court. He would not follow any of the court’s instructions. . . .

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.

During the trial, this court continually warned Mr. Asensio and attempted to persuade him to behave, with a view to preclude a mistrial. Despite repeated warnings, there was no way to prevent his misconduct. The court ultimately, announced that it would hold a contempt hearing, but decided to await conclusion of this appeal process. Based on this record, it is apparent to this court that plaintiff suffered prejudice because of defendants’ misconduct. To not grant a new trial would be a miscarriage of justice.

 __________________________________________________________________

Page Created 12/28/02 •  Updated 6/08/03