Tenorio Denies Death Threat

May 26, 2011

Joaquin Hackie Tenorio who made a gruesome death threat against Rabby Syed on February 26, 2011, denied making the threat when he appeared before Superior Court presiding Judge Robert C Naraja. He entered a not guilty plea through Public Defender Richard Miller.

Kudos to Chief Prosecutor Michael Ernest for investigating and charging 22-year-old Tenorio with one count of assault and one count of disturbing the peace.

Rabby, Ronnie Doca and several members of the United Workers Movement were at a meeting when Tenorio's aunt called Rabby.  Rabby put the call on speaker phone and another  UWM officer taped the conversation with his cell phone.

I have a MP3 copy of the conversation and a copy was given to the FBI.

During the call, Tenorio's aunt, who identified herself as Juanita from San Roque asked Rabby to accept an apology. She admitted in the call that Ed Mendiola from San Roque got Rabby's number from the newspaper and convinced her nephew, Joaquin Tenorio, to call and threaten Rabby using the land phone in her house. She even put her nephew on the phone who admitted that he threatened Rabby and used the name "Norita" as the caller.

The aunt told Rabby that she "scolded him" (her nephew) and told him "watch out, you can go to jail."

During the call she told Rabby that her nephew was with her and he wanted to talk to Rabby. She put Tenorio on the phone. He told Rabby, "I'm very sorry for the threat that I gave you."

When Tenorio threatened to chop off Rabby's hands and feet and kill him Rabby's cell phone (which recorded the land line number) was on speaker and Rabby's wife heard the threat.

The defendant is unwise to deny making the threat when he admitted to Rabby that he was the one who made the threat, the aunt admitted that he made the threat, Rabby's wife heard him make the threat as the call was put on speaker, and the UWM officers listened to the admissions when Rabby wisely put the call from the aunt and Tenorio on speaker. My goodness, the evidence is overwhelming, this guy should admit his guilt and suffer the consequences.


Anonymous said...

Does anybody really think that there will be any penalty if this person is convicted in this case? If it goes to a jury trial he most likely will not be convicted unless the Aunt testify against him. Even then it still may be a not guilty verdict.
He was not even charged with a serious charge. (according to the article)
He could have been charged with terrorist threatening using an electronic device. (among other things)
Other places that is a minimum of 1 year in jail.

If I was Syed I would contact a Lawyer and maybe since this guy has already been charged on the NMI level maybe he can also be charged on the Fed. side
And why has the "instigator" not been charged as an assessory?

Watch, the AG will "plea" this away to nothing but a letter of apology and a verbal reprimand.
Because of the name, the only reason this was even brought to charges was because of the publicity is got.
Remember the cop did not want to do anything and if Syed had not done all of the things he did and supplied the cops with the info (and witness), nothing would have come of this.
This is the common NMI style justice with the incompetence of the AG supported by the Judges watching for their retention votes.
That family name carries a lot of votes.
One perfect ex. is they dropped the Kagman rape case WITH A WITNESS and the victim knows the attacker from from school. The Ag and judge only will send the witness "lookout" away.
That will in effect be a deterent to others in the future of notto cooperate.

Anonymous said...

It is also a hate crime that the federal officials could have prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised you haven't written up any post yet about the criminalization of libel and removal of truth as a defense of libel Bill introduced in the CNMI Senate. It's time to get the EFF involved in this gross attack on civil rights.

This is a bill that could make YOU a criminal just for owning a blog where people can comment.

Wendy said...

Anonymous 10:03

I am overwhelmed with work, writing a report on status, and family obligations so this site has not been given much attention. BUT I finally got something posted!

I researched the laws. As long as I state that I am expressing an opinion and do not print something untruthful, I am not violating laws. (See the disclaimer in the sidebar.) Blog owners are not responsible for comments that are posted to their sites.

Of course, this law could be challenged as unconstitutional. Who are the attorneys who work in the House? Please send me a copy of the legislation and I will run it by my friends at the ACLU for their opinion.

the scribe said...

The ACLU will not accept a case in the CNMI. They told me they didn't have the funding or staff and were overwhelmed with work in HI and CA, so they could not initiate any legal actions in the commonwealth.