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 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.
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!"
___________________________________________________________________ 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 . . .
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.
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