Replies to post #922 on -Top Gainer - DD// - (deet)

[deet49]

if you've read the 92 page complaint<<<

there are 3 Non-parties

9. AZCUB@, a nonparty to this case, is an alter ego of the Cub@n Government.
AZCUB@ is a state-run monopoly that “possesses”, “manages”, “uses” or “holds an interest in”
all of Cub@’s sugar growing land, including land confiscated from Francisco.

10. Empresa Terminales Mambisas de la Habana (“Mambisas”), a nonparty to this
case, is an alter ego of the Cub@n Government. Mambisas presently “possesses”, “manages”,
“uses” or “holds an interest in” all of Cub@’s ports, including the Port of Guayabal.

11. Corporación Azucarera del Perú, S.A. (“Coazucar”), a nonparty to this case, is a
Peruvian sugar company. Coazucar served as consignee for a shipment of Francisco-grown sugar
exported from the Port of Guayabal to ASR’s refinery in London, United Kingdom.

in the 92 page complaint they point out that 'non parties' are 'traffickers' too
so have they not been named in the suit?

k' the big question where did Frazcisco get the evidence???
I think it was from the three mentioned above
either they helped or we have at least 3 more suits ahead

92 page complaint FRAZcisco VS ASR Group International INC.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=163727453

GLTA

[deet49]

English: "AS Just One Example" = More than once
so the body of evidence is not just the one incident on or about July 27,2016 it includes also and others in the Plural

From 92 page complaint:

30. As just one example, on or about July 27, 2016, ASR knowingly and intentionally purchased a shipment of cane sugar that all presently known facts suggest derived from Francisco’s confiscated assets north of Guayabal. Francisco’s arable land, as well as sugar
produced by that land, constitutes confiscated property as defined by the Helms-Burton Act. AZCUB@, an alter ego of the Cuban government, maintains a monopoly on all aspects of the sugar business in Cub@. AZCUB@ is as trafficker according to Helms-Burton because it “possesses”, “manages”, “uses” or “holds an interest in” Francisco’s sugar growing land, and it engaged in “a commercial activity using or otherwise benefitting from confiscated property” when it sold Francisco-grown sugar

21. ASR also had actual knowledge of Cuba’s confiscation of Francisco. ASR executive José F. Fanjul, Jr.’s father has owned 3,989 shares of Francisco for many years.

May 21 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 1 Complaint https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/40088263/Francisco_Industries,_Inc_v_ASR_Group_International,_Inc

that does not sound like a slam dunk of any kind by ASR group, nothing like his presser that expressed outrage and the lack of due diligence on the part of team FRAZ what happened to those (forged?fraudulent?) documents he referred to?(obviously when committing illegal acts they would have legitimate paperwork right?)

makes me believe my theory about where the evidence came from is on target https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=163919916


From ASR Presser:

The Fanjul’s added, “Had the lawyers conducted the slightest diligence, as required by ethical and federal court rules, they would have known their allegation that ASR Group purchased sugar from Cuba was false. The Fanjul family, like many Cuban Americans, lost everything as a result of the Castro regime. To falsely accuse the Fanjul family or any of our affiliated companies of violating the embargo with Cuba is offensive, even more so coming from fellow Cubans.”

“We provided the lawyers with public records demonstrating that ASR Group did not make the purchase of Cuban sugar they cite a week ago, and they have not dismissed the complaint, leading us to believe that their conduct is malicious and aimed only at tarnishing the reputation of ASR Group and the Fanjul family,” concluded the statement.

Go FRAZ
PCHM G/S