Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 24STCP02093, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP02093, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02093 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 82

Ronsel-Lamond: Mitchell v. County of Los Angeles (CSSD)

Case No. 24STCP02093

[Tentative] Order Dismissing Case without Prejudice

The court posts this tentative order on Monday, July 29, 2024, at 11:15 a.m. which is two days before the hearing on July 31, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. The court provides notice: If Petitioner does not appear, either remotely or in-person, he shall waive the right to be heard and shall submit to entry of this order.

Petitioner “Ronsel-Lamond: Mitchell,” a self-represented litigant, filed two different petitions seeking a writ of mandate and other relief. Petitioner states that he is “fully Sovereign” and “not a U.S. citizen, not a signatory, nor a party to the social compact (Constitution) of the State of California Status and said Constitution does not operate upon the Undersigned . . . .” Petitioner signed one of the petitions as “secured party creditor, sui juris, sovereign ambassador (2 Corinthians 5:20) by jure divino authorized representative for and in behalf of Ronsel Lamond Mitchell.” Petitioner uses the trademark symbol in front of his name and the copyright symbol after his name.

Petitioner appears to challenge court-ordered child support under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act on the basis that he is a sovereign citizen and never “contracted” with the government. Petitioner alleges: “On March 21, 1994 an adhesion contract that never had standing to bring a complaint against Ronsel Mitchell, it is all part of the child support scheme to recoup a Title IV-A loan not belonging to Ronsel Mitchell, nor is it for the child or mother.” Petitioner appears to challenge a decision by the Honorable Firdaus F. Dordi, who is the Assistant Supervising Judge of the Family Court:

“I do not know what to do because the Honorable Firdaus F. Dordi, the County of Los Angeles CSSD and IV-D Contractors ignored the Affidavits and the liberty to contract presented under Item #05181966-RLM-LND. This freedom of contract was also alluded to as a property right . . . . This right was struck down or arbitrarily interfered with by the Honorable Firdaus F. Dordi, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense so I ask for the Administrative remedy not considered as legal?’ I seek to review of the IV-D and the Honorable Firdaus F. Dordi lower courts decision and request a writ of Certiorari. Request for compensation damages against the Honorable Firdaus F. Dordi of the IV-D Contractors . . . .”

The petitions contain similar references, as well as references to the Uniform Commercial Code.

Based upon the foregoing, the court noticed: (1) A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Code of Civil Procedure section 438(b)(2); and (2) An order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed under Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 181- 182. The court provided written notice on July 5, 2024, and Petitioner filed a response on July 16, 2024. The court has reviewed and considered the response.

On its face, Petitioners’ petitions lack merit, as one need not “contract” with the government in order to be subject to child support orders. Regardless, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the orders of another Superior Court Judge; such matters must be raised with the District Court of Appeal. This court does not have authority to review child support orders. Therefore, the court orders as follows:

1. The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings.

2. The court grants its own order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed under Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 181- 182.

3. The court dismisses this case without prejudice.

4. The court’s clerk shall serve a copy of this order upon Petitioner. Further notice is not required.