People v Amen
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 23, 2013
Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Ramaanu Amen, Defendant.
2013QN026244
Defendant's pro se n/m, May 23, 2013, June 10, 2013
No People's Affirmation in Opposition
Michelle A. Armstrong, J.
The defendant has moved for dismissal of the accusatory instrument on the basis that this Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over him. The People have not filed an Affirmation in Opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is DENIED.
The defendant claims that he is a member of the "Moorish American Nation" and, as such, this Court lacks in personam jurisdictionover him. This challenge, by self identified members of the Moorish American Nation, has previously been raised in both state and federal courts; and consistently rejected (see generally Kaleem Bey v Internal Revenue Service, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14315 [S.D.NY 1993]; United States v James, 328 F.3d 953 [7th Cir. 2003]; Saabirah El v City of New York, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12431 [S.D.NY 2002]; People v Michael Johnson, N.Y.L.J. p. 26, col 1 [Suffolk County Ct. July 3, 2006]).
This Court's authority to adjudicate the pending action is clearly set forth in the New York State Constitution which provides that "[t]he courts of city-wide jurisdiction of the city of New York shall have jurisdiction over crimes and other violations of law, other than those prosecuted by [*2]indictment . . ." (Constitution of the State of New York, Article VI, section 15[c]). Further, the New York City Criminal Court Act proscribes that judges of the NYC Criminal Court shall have jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine misdemeanor crimes or lesser offenses, except libel, committed within New York City [emphasis added] (NYC Crim Ct. Act § 31[1] and [2]). Hence, in personam jurisdiction confers upon the defendant, not by his status or non-status as a citizen of the United States, but by his presence within its borders (See People v King J El, 15 Misc 3d 1137[A], 841 NYS2d 822 [NYC Crim Ct. 2007][The laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders, regardless of the person's citizenship, nationality, or status as a stateless person]). Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over the defendant and over the criminal offenses charged in the accusatory instrument; all of which the defendant is alleged to have committed in the County of Queens. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated:December 23, 2013
Kew Gardens, New YorkENTER
_______________________________
Michelle A. Armstrong, J.C.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
