Bobbie Extradition
by Harry V. Martin
The long ordeal in Napa has ended and a new one begins in Mason County, Washington for Roberta Riconoscuito. This week Riconoscuito was sent back to Napa County Jail awaiting extradition to the State of Washington. But there is still a possibility of Federal intervention.
Despite the fact that Riconoscuito had sought the protection of the Federal court system, the Napa courts ruled that despite legal rulings, it was not bound to vacate her case. Ironically, Riconoscuito was jailed one week before a Federal court was to hear her petition to take over jurisdiction of the case.
Riconoscuito is asking the Federal Court to grant a temporary restraining order against the extradition proceedings and release her from any and all restrictions imposed on her liberty by State officials. However, by mid-week a Writ of Habeas Corpus had been filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The Writ seeks the immediate release of Riconoscuito and a transferring of the case from State court to Federal court.
The Writ charges that the Mason County arrest warrant was in "retaliation for her willingness to testify against certain criminal activity in which State (of Washington) officials were involved.
It has been four months since the arrest in Napa of Riconoscuito on a three-year-old State of Washington warrant for custodial interference. Riconoscuito was arrested on the eve of her husband's testimony to a specially convened Federal Grand Jury in Chicago investigating the Inslaw case. She was originally held without bail. Three of her four children were shipped off to their father without a formal court hearing.
On nearly a weekly basis, Riconoscuito appeared in Napa courts attempting to prevent her extradition to the State of Washington. It was in Mason County, Washington, that Riconoscuito testified in a child molestation scandal that saw the arrest of a member of the Sheriff's Department, the head of the County Republicans, and members of the court system. These individuals were closely associated with her ex-husband. Riconoscuito also testified to a Riverside County (California) Grand Jury on the murder of a Cabazon Indian leader and two of his friends in execution style. The key suspect in that murder was her ex-husband's lifelong friend.
The procedures that the Napa court system had to apply to the case included a hearing identifying Riconoscuito as Roberta Peterson, her name when married in Mason County, Washington; and then a wait for the Governor of California to issue a warrant for her extradition. The long wait for the Governor's extradition order ended this week, it was issued. Under the warrant Riconoscuito should have been jailed immediately pending being transferred to the State of Washington. But the Napa court allowed Riconoscuito free for another week until the Napa County District Attorney's Office could prove to the court that Riconoscuito's case should remain in the jurisdiction of Napa and the State court system.
Riconoscuito filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Northern California District. Riconoscuito's court action was to remove her case from the local courts and transfer it to federal jurisdiction. Riconoscuito cited 28 USC ¤ 1441, which states, "Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district court of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States..." The law states that the Federal District Court "acquires jurisdiction as of the time of the filing of the petition in the federal court."
Riconoscuito states in her federal court document that her ex-husband, Steven Peterson "was involved in criminal activity, including, but not limited to, sexual abuse and the conspiracy to murder Fred Alvarez, a member of the Cabazon Indian Nation in Indio, California. That Riconoscuito was seeking to enter the California Witness Protection Program because (of) her willingness to testify about the criminal activity of Peterson." The petition also alleges that Peterson beat Riconoscuito while she was pregnant, which had nearly caused a miscarriage and her own death, supported by separate affidavits. When Riconoscuito was providing such testimony in the past, she sought to have the affidavit sealed and made her allegation in camera (closed session) out of fear for her life and that the Mason County authorities placed her life in jeopardy by putting the affidavit into the public record.
The three year old warrant is based on an action taken when the courts gave custody of the children to the father without notifying Riconoscuito, she had already fled after the beating. The custody order was set aside, however. So another order was issued, this time not only providing the ex-husband with custody but also assigning real estate and insurance entitlements to her ex-husband.
Riconoscuito is claiming there is no valid warrant. On April 7, 1989, Riconoscuito's ex-husband stated he did not want custody of the children. Riconoscuito is charging that her arrest was a method to intimidate her present husband, Michael Riconoscuito. Michael Riconoscuito was scheduled to testify on November 18, 1992, before the Federal Grand Jury impaneled to investigate the Inslaw case. Roberta Riconoscuito was arrested in Napa on November 17, she had been residing here for nearly a year and her children were enrolled in local schools.