Bobbie, Caught in the Middle
by Harry V. Martin
It has been four months since the arrest in Napa of Roberta 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 including 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 Riconoscuito is still free today, and the Napa County District Attorney's Office is not very happy about it.
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 authories 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.
Riconoscuito is asking the Federal Court to grant a temporary restraining order against the extradition proceedings and release of her from any and all restrictions imposed on her liberty by State officials.
The Federal Grand Jury in Chicago is sitting on two sealed indictments, awaiting instructions from the newly sworn in U.S. Attorney Janet Reno. The House Judiciary Committee, headed by Congressman Jack Brooks of Texas, has issued a preliminary report on the Inslaw case, and is withholding the final report. He has sought legislation to have Congress authorize the creation of a special prosecutor in the Inslaw case, at which time he is expected to turn over evidence and the report.
Brooks would not be seeking a special prosecutor unless he felt there was sufficient evidence of criminal action on the part of the U.S. Justice Department in the Inslaw case. Michael Riconoscuito's affidavit on the Inslaw case appears in the Congressional report and he was called to testify before the Grand Jury as well, his wife's arrest in Napa caused him to refuse to testify until she was safe.
On Monday, the Napa court will decide whether or not they have lost control of the case, though under federal regulations, the local court may not have the jurisdiction to make that decision in the first place.