Friday, June 03, 2005
SAMPSON PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO FEDERAL CHARGES
Ralph Sampson pleaded not guilty today to federal charges of failing to pay court-ordered child support, and he is scheduled for trial Sept. 14, 2005.
The prosecution is under the criminal provision of the federal Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 228 -- available here), which provides: "Any person who . . . willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000 . . . ." The punishment for a first offense is up to six months in prison, and a second offense is punishable by up to two years.
We have no particular ax to grind against Mr. Sampson and sincerely hope that he can resolve this dispute amiably. Our interest in the matter continues to be in the bigger picture. If Mr. Sampson owes this money, how could the federal authorities allow such a high profile person to accrue such a large arrearage? Why can’t his pension be attached? And, if this whole episode is a mistake on the part of government prosecutors, how did they make such a mistake?
If anyone out there can answer these questions, we would like their input.
Ralph Sampson pleaded not guilty today to federal charges of failing to pay court-ordered child support, and he is scheduled for trial Sept. 14, 2005.
The prosecution is under the criminal provision of the federal Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 228 -- available here), which provides: "Any person who . . . willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000 . . . ." The punishment for a first offense is up to six months in prison, and a second offense is punishable by up to two years.
We have no particular ax to grind against Mr. Sampson and sincerely hope that he can resolve this dispute amiably. Our interest in the matter continues to be in the bigger picture. If Mr. Sampson owes this money, how could the federal authorities allow such a high profile person to accrue such a large arrearage? Why can’t his pension be attached? And, if this whole episode is a mistake on the part of government prosecutors, how did they make such a mistake?
If anyone out there can answer these questions, we would like their input.
