This Thread is for NY attorneys:
Question... are there dual jurisdictions being described in the 2 cases i provided? How does the govt determine if jurisdiction lies in County or State? Can State convene a grand jury in Any county? Are there distinctions alluded to in the case law and § 20.30- New York State v. State of New York. Is anyone familiar with this? NY has criminalized digital currency trading. If a NYér uses our website, how would govt prove the "effect" described in section § 20.10 (3) and (4)? (see below)
We are trying to understand the mechanics of NY geographical jurisdiction. We provide digital currency services/trading. NY has in essence criminalized digital currency operations. If for whatever reason a NY'er accesses our site, and we get tangled up, it's important to know where we stand.
In People v Zimmerman, there is an interesting dynamic where State has jurisdiction, however, no County does... and in
People v Kassebaum there is a distinction between this state and the state, as if there is dual jurisdictions, as could be alluded to in CPL § 20.30 ... in § 20.10 it defines 'this state' as New York State... yet there is no New York State constitution. 1777 constitution created 'State of New York'... in all 5 constitutions there is absolutely no mention of New York State.. .
i get it, laymen say "new york state" all the time, however, language is extremely important in arguing these sorts of semantics... just like submitting tax docs to the govt, Walmart will use the name it is registered as "Wal-Mart Inc." as opposed to "The Corporation of Walmart" or a man would not flip-flop his First/Last name.. . Am I Dave Smith or Smith Dave ?....
all govt websites and agencies refer to "New York State" Assembly, Senate, Governor, DMV, etc... 1777 created "assembly of the State of New York" not "New York State Assembly"....
It seems lawyers for Zimmerman did well preventing the govt from interfering with his client, based on the highly technical condition of State VS County jurisdictions in his case. If these semantics dont matter, then we can not be penalized for flip flopping our corporate name around in ads, filings, etc? Does anyone have a good grasp of these dynamics i have presented? Why would govt need Not prove any harm in a domestic case, but Must prove harm/Effect in a long-arm case?
Our goal is to understand this dynamic better as we search for a law firm to retain. I believe most attorneys may not grasp what is explained in Kassebaum and especially Zimmerman.
§ 20.10 Geographical jurisdiction of offenses; definitions of terms. 1. "This state" means New York State as its boundaries are prescribed in the state law, and the space over it. 3. "Result of an offense." 4. "Particular effect of an offense."
§ 20.30 Geographical jurisdiction of offenses; effect of laws of other jurisdictions upon this state's jurisdiction.
People v Zimmerman https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2007/2007-09812.html
"under the particular circumstances of this case, where the State of New York has jurisdiction to prosecute defendant, there is no county in the entire state which would serve as an appropriate venue under the current statutory scheme, i.e., there is no one particularly affected county. "
People v. Kassebaum https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2001/95-n-y-2d-611-0.html
"Historically, under the common law, the only State that could exercise jurisdiction over a felony offense was the State where the felony was completed (see, People v Werblow, 241 NY 55, 60). Recognizing this common-law territorial principle as the foundation of our jurisprudence, we have acknowledged that it "has been supplanted by State statutes broadening the territorial scope of criminal jurisdiction" (People v Stokes, 88 NY2d 618, 624). In New York, the relevant statute is CPL 20.20 which has generally codified the rule "that, for the State to *618 have criminal jurisdiction, either the alleged conduct or some consequence of it must have occurred within the State" (People v McLaughlin, supra, 80 NY2d, at 471).
In this case, we must venture beyond this basic articulation of the statute to construe its particular terms, beginning with the People's first theory of jurisdiction predicated on CPL 20.20 (1) (a), which provides that
"a person may be convicted in the criminal courts of this state of an offense defined by the laws of this state, committed either by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable pursuant to section 20.00 of the penal law, when: "1. Conduct occurred within this state sufficient to establish: "(a) An element of such offense...." "
Question... are there dual jurisdictions being described in the 2 cases i provided? How does the govt determine if jurisdiction lies in County or State? Can State convene a grand jury in Any county? Are there distinctions alluded to in the case law and § 20.30- New York State v. State of New York. Is anyone familiar with this? NY has criminalized digital currency trading. If a NYér uses our website, how would govt prove the "effect" described in section § 20.10 (3) and (4)? (see below)
We are trying to understand the mechanics of NY geographical jurisdiction. We provide digital currency services/trading. NY has in essence criminalized digital currency operations. If for whatever reason a NY'er accesses our site, and we get tangled up, it's important to know where we stand.
In People v Zimmerman, there is an interesting dynamic where State has jurisdiction, however, no County does... and in
People v Kassebaum there is a distinction between this state and the state, as if there is dual jurisdictions, as could be alluded to in CPL § 20.30 ... in § 20.10 it defines 'this state' as New York State... yet there is no New York State constitution. 1777 constitution created 'State of New York'... in all 5 constitutions there is absolutely no mention of New York State.. .
i get it, laymen say "new york state" all the time, however, language is extremely important in arguing these sorts of semantics... just like submitting tax docs to the govt, Walmart will use the name it is registered as "Wal-Mart Inc." as opposed to "The Corporation of Walmart" or a man would not flip-flop his First/Last name.. . Am I Dave Smith or Smith Dave ?....
all govt websites and agencies refer to "New York State" Assembly, Senate, Governor, DMV, etc... 1777 created "assembly of the State of New York" not "New York State Assembly"....
It seems lawyers for Zimmerman did well preventing the govt from interfering with his client, based on the highly technical condition of State VS County jurisdictions in his case. If these semantics dont matter, then we can not be penalized for flip flopping our corporate name around in ads, filings, etc? Does anyone have a good grasp of these dynamics i have presented? Why would govt need Not prove any harm in a domestic case, but Must prove harm/Effect in a long-arm case?
Our goal is to understand this dynamic better as we search for a law firm to retain. I believe most attorneys may not grasp what is explained in Kassebaum and especially Zimmerman.
§ 20.10 Geographical jurisdiction of offenses; definitions of terms. 1. "This state" means New York State as its boundaries are prescribed in the state law, and the space over it. 3. "Result of an offense." 4. "Particular effect of an offense."
§ 20.30 Geographical jurisdiction of offenses; effect of laws of other jurisdictions upon this state's jurisdiction.
People v Zimmerman https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2007/2007-09812.html
"under the particular circumstances of this case, where the State of New York has jurisdiction to prosecute defendant, there is no county in the entire state which would serve as an appropriate venue under the current statutory scheme, i.e., there is no one particularly affected county. "
People v. Kassebaum https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2001/95-n-y-2d-611-0.html
"Historically, under the common law, the only State that could exercise jurisdiction over a felony offense was the State where the felony was completed (see, People v Werblow, 241 NY 55, 60). Recognizing this common-law territorial principle as the foundation of our jurisprudence, we have acknowledged that it "has been supplanted by State statutes broadening the territorial scope of criminal jurisdiction" (People v Stokes, 88 NY2d 618, 624). In New York, the relevant statute is CPL 20.20 which has generally codified the rule "that, for the State to *618 have criminal jurisdiction, either the alleged conduct or some consequence of it must have occurred within the State" (People v McLaughlin, supra, 80 NY2d, at 471).
In this case, we must venture beyond this basic articulation of the statute to construe its particular terms, beginning with the People's first theory of jurisdiction predicated on CPL 20.20 (1) (a), which provides that
"a person may be convicted in the criminal courts of this state of an offense defined by the laws of this state, committed either by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable pursuant to section 20.00 of the penal law, when: "1. Conduct occurred within this state sufficient to establish: "(a) An element of such offense...." "
Last edited:
