The Mojave Desert Land Trust has used donations and grants obtained from the California Natural Resources Agency and the Marine Corps to make a $908,000 purchase of 640 acres of land adjacent to the western edge of Joshua Tree National Park.
Located south of Yucca Valley and the intersection of Acoma Trail and Golden Bee Drive and more than eight miles from the outskirts of Desert Hot Springs, the land had been owned for over a decade by Danmark Development, which had designs of subdividing the property for residential development. The property, an expanse of Joshua trees, piñon pines and brush, populated by no people and a smattering of desert tortoise, badgers, mule deer and an occasional bobcat, includes a ridge in the Little San Bernardino Mountains that presents a spectacular vantage over Long Canyon, both Yucca and Coachella valleys and the San Gorgonio Wilderness peaks to the west.
The land, nevertheless, is marred by debris, trash, old tires, discarded appliances, abandoned vehicles and upwards of 40,000 bullet casings, as over the years people have used it as a dump and unauthorized shooting range. An effort to clean the property up over the next several years is being planned.
It is the Mojave Desert Land Trust’s intention that the 640 acres will be absorbed into Joshua Tree National Park, becoming a protected area, meaning it will be off limits for development of any sort but will be open to hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians, and will stand as a wildlife preserve. This last function is significant, as the property is located within the wildlife corridor between Joshua Tree National Park and the Sand to Snow National Monument.
The Mojave Desert Land Trust, a nonprofit, will manage the land until it is transferred to the federal government for inclusion into Joshua Tree National Park.

By Count Friedrich von Olsen
In recent weeks and months, I have taken quite a beating for having unabashedly confessed my preference for older women. It has not always been so; the simple truth is I have my entire life been most enamored of women near, or very near, my own age. It is true that as a lad, or more accurately a tyke, I had something of a crush on my governess, who was, most likely two decades or thereabouts my senior. But for the most part, the girls that caught my imagination were essentially my contemporaries. It is a mathematical fact that given my advanced age, my contemporaries are now older women…
It is not that I do not have an aesthetic appreciation for the beauty of youth. Indeed, I am not blind to that. But there is a beauty to age, as well, if one is inclined to discern it. Moreover, for me at least, there is an importance attached to being able to converse with a women if I am to spend any but the most fleeting of time with her. Thus, she, and I, must have something to say and something to discuss. If I were to again be put in the position of being one on one with a 20-year-old woman – or a 30-year-old woman – as on occasion in recent times has happened, I am afraid I am at a loss as to what we would actually say. I fear that there would be just about nothing that I could say to her that she would have even the slightest interest in. And while I am sure that there would be something or other that she might say to me that would be meaningful, even though we might speak the same language, I am not sure I would understand it, given what passes for today’s vernacular…
So, as I said, a few of the guys were giving me a hard time for my professed partiality to older women and try as I might, I was not able to acquit my prejudice. So, I turn now to someone far more articulate than I to make that case. It seems that a young man once informed Benjamin Franklin that despite his libidinous desire for women, he was deathly afraid of marriage, even though getting married might seve to quell his libido. Mr. Franklin wrote him a letter, urging him to overcome his fear and find a matrimonial partner. Along the way, in recognizing that the young man might not heed his advice, Mr. Franklin told him that if he were to continue to carry on outside the bounds of wedlock, he should find an older woman to dally with. In so doing, Mr. Franklin made the points I believe explain, at least in part, my own feeling in this matter. So, here, without any further embellishment, is Mr. Franklin’s letter…

June 25, 1745

My dear Friend,

I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entering into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissors. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.
But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:
1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor’d with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreeable.
2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.
3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc’d may be attended with much Inconvenience.
4. Because thro’ more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin’d to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.
5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.
6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.
7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.
8thly and Lastly They are so grateful!!
Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend.
Benjamin Franklin

John D. Glenn (left) and Silas S. Glenn Jr. (center) and Robert (right) A fourth brother, “Jerry”, died in a gunfight in Tehachapi in 1878. (Photo from the Virginia R. Harshman Collection)

By Mark Gutglueck
The Glenn family, consisting of Silas Glenn and his wife Mourning and their daughter and four sons, were early settlers in Lytle Creek. Silas and his wife moved from Texas to El Monte to raise their family in California, where conscription into the Confederate Army would not take place. In 1866, they moved to Lytle Creek, where Silas created a ranch.
1878 was a rough year for Mourning Glenn, as she suffered through the deaths of her husband, Silas Glenn, Sr., and her son, Jeremiah, who was killed in a gun battle. In the years thereafter, it was all she could do to maintain the Glenn Ranch in Lytle Creek Canyon. The widow was not without resources, and she was able to make ends meet by welcoming asthma and consumption patients at the ranch as boarders. As the situation suggests, she offered them comfort in a place where the climate might prove a curative to their maladies.
Over the next decade, Mrs. Glenn received little in the way of assistance from her son, Silas, Jr., who was engaged in working gold claims further up the canyon he had originally filed in 1874, although he lived at the ranch off and on.
By the late 1880s, Mrs. Glenn was in need of ever more assistance, and she turned to her daughter, Ellen, who had married James Applewhite, hoping to persuade her to relocate back to the ranch in Lytle Creek and provide her with the assistance she needed to keep the ranch from falling by the wayside. In 1889, at the age of 75, she wrote her daughter a letter with a formal invitation to return home with her husband and take on the management of the ranch. She was particularly looking forward to having her son-in-law, James Applewhite, present to handle the rougher duties running a ranch entailed. In an August letter she again wrote to her daughter, indicating that she had her hands full in dealing with those camping and taking day tours of the ranch, saying she was looking forward to the arrival of Ellen and her husband.
In the spring of 1890, Ellen and James Applewhite arrived at the ranch and took up residence there. And while Silas, Jr. and his brother John had long taken for granted that the ranch would be a part of their inheritance, they had been less than diligent with regard to looking after it or their mother. With the arrival of their brother-in-law, both grew alarmed that this meant James Applewhite was moving in on what they assumed was rightfully theirs and that they were being cut off at the pass for their piece of the canyon.
At that point, Silas and John had not been absent from the Glenn Ranch and Lytle Creek altogether, but they were rarely around, having been herding cattle in the valley.
Contemporary newspaper accounts paint a somewhat deprecating picture of the two brothers, intimating that they were, in the words of Lytle Creek historian Virginia R. Harshman, “generally considered worthless and shiftless.” Conversely, chroniclers of the time had a somewhat higher regard for their brother, Robert, who was making a name for himself in Tehachapi, and enjoyed what Harshman characterized as “an excellent reputation.”

Ellen Applewhite (nee Glenn), left; James Oliver “Ollie” Applewhite, the sone of James and Ellen Applewhite, center; James M. Applewhite, right (Photo from the Virginia R. Harshman Collection)

In addition to his suspicion that his brother-in-law and his sister were in the process of usurping his inheritance, John Glenn had grounds for a further animus toward them. In November 1889, his wife, Maude, had left him to return to live with her parents. John believed she had done so at least in part because of the counsel of his 27 year-old nephew, Ollie Applewhite, the son of Ellen and James Applewhite.
On Friday June 23, 1893, John and Silas, Jr had returned to the ranch, ready, legend has it, to settle the matter with regard to their brother-in-law encroaching on what they felt was theirs. According to some, they had come to even the score with Ollie Applewhite for moving in on John’s wife. If their plan had been to ambush Ollie at dusk when he returned home for the weekend from his job in the valley, that plan was frustrated when Ollie waited until Saturday morning to return in broad daylight. James Applewhite, alarmed by the Glenns’ demeanor, behavior and loose talk, left the ranch very early to meet his son on his way into Lytle Creek and forewarn him of what might lay in store for him.
Sometime around 10 a.m. on Saturday June 24, 1893, with John and Silas, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Applewhite and Ollie outside of one of the ranch’s dwellings, one of the Glenn brothers became accusative and insulting toward Ollie, who dismissed what was being said by his uncle, telling him he wanted to hear no more. John Glenn escalated the accusatory palaver to threats. James Applewhite told his brothers-in-law that he could see they were itching for a fight, and that he did not want there to be any hostilities. Nevertheless, he said, if they were determined to mix things up, there was going to be trouble. He then walked toward one of the ranch houses, which was some 120 feet from where he had just had the testy exchange with John and Silas. He would later testify that he believed he might be shot in the back as he made this tension-filled walk. At the house, he retrieved his shotgun from where he kept it at the ready behind the dining room door. He went to the other side of the house and out another door to another ranch house some 180 feet distant, where he positioned himself on the porch. The others, having spotted him, began approaching him. Ellen, sensing things were moving toward an unwanted confrontation, importuned her brothers to stop. They continued on. At a point somewhere in between the two houses, one of the brothers remarked that it would be best to “do up” the son before they took on their brother-in-law. As John drew his revolver, Ollie drew his and blasted his uncle John, reportedly firing a single shot which hit him in the temple, killing him instantly. At the same moment, James Applewhite discharged a single round of buckshot, three pellets of which struck Silas, dropping him. Silas, still alive, was taken into one of the houses while Ollie headed off directly to Cajon, to the closest telegraph station. There he telegraphed Colton to reach Dr. Daniels, who formerly lived in Lytle Canyon and was the Glenn family doctor. Ollie Applewhite rendezvoused with Deputy Sheriff Whiteman in Cajon after sending the electric dispatch, surrendered to him and they both returned to the Glenn Ranch. Whiteman found John’s weapon in his hand and the gun belonging to Silas under his coat. Both were cocked but had not been fired.
Silas Glenn hung on for more than a day-and-a-half, but expired at 6 a.m. on Monday June 26. Before he died, Silas dictated and then affixed his signature to a will bequeathing his 160 acres and water rights to his mother, to an 18-year-old girl in Cajon, and to Dr. Daniels. Among his last words was his pronouncement that he was sorry for what had happened.
The coroner’s inquest over John’s death concluded Ollie Applewhite had acted in self defense. But his father, fearing reprisals if the matter was not settled entirely in a court of law, insisted that Ollie stand trial. After Silas died, both father and son were taken to San Bernardino, but were not subjected to the ignominy of being housed in the jail. Ellen went with them, and they stayed at King House, under a type of house arrest supervised by a deputy.
The trial had its dramatic moments. Mrs. Mourning Glenn testified that she had seen Ollie, her grand son, and Maude Glenn, her daughter in law and John’s wife, engaged in an animated conversation “like a couple sparking.” And, she said they had gone to three dances together.
In his testimony, James Applewhite laid the blame for the events leading up to the shooting at his mother-in-law’s feet, saying she had stirred things up with her sons. He said he did not believe she was in full control of her senses and had acted irresponsibly.
Father and son were acquitted.
John Glenn’s share of the ranch went to his estranged wife, Maude (Hazard) Glenn.
Mourning Glenn sold the portion of the Glenn Ranch under her control to James Applewhite and left for Tehachapi to live with her son, Robert.

Moving on to six months after San Bernardino County sheriff deputies arrested a Rancho Cucamonga man for stealing his own motorcycle and jailed him for 23 days, the department is now refusing to take action against the man who a Superior Court judge has since determined was the actual perpetrator of the bike theft.
Though the department relied upon a forged document that was controverted by California Department of Motor Vehicle registration data in taking its initial action and despite a court having now ruled that document to be a doctored and non-binding bill of sale, the sheriff’s department is maintaining the matter is one best adjudicated in civil court. This has prompted the motorcycle owner, whose bike has yet to be returned to him, to initiate the administrative process which must be completed to undertake legal action against the department.
During the month of May 2016, 21-year-old Eric Stone was negotiating the sale of his 2007 Yamaha motorcycle to his friend Daniel Lorenzo, also of Rancho Cucamonga. Lorenzo took the motorcycle for a test ride and never returned it. Over the following 30 days Stone made several requests to Lorenzo for payment or return of his property, which Lorenzo refused. On July 3, 2016 Stone located and recovered his motorcycle.
The same day, July 3, deputies from the Rancho Cucamonga sheriff’s station arrested Stone for violating California Vehicle Code Section 10851, vehicle theft, even after deputies verified through the California Department of Motor Vehicles computer data base that the motorcycle was currently registered to Stone and he was named as the owner of record. That arrest was predicated on statements Lorenzo made to deputies when he contacted the sheriff’s department and reported the motorcycle as stolen. When the deputies responded to Lorenzo’s location, he presented them with forged documents, including a handwritten bill of sale. When deputies contacted Stone and found him in possession of the motorcycle, he told them that he is the owner of the motorcycle and could produce a valid title. Stone denied writing the bill of sale. Deputies then accessed the DMV database and confirmed Stone was the registered owner. Despite the determination that Stone was yet the owner of record, Stone was arrested. Deputies returned the motorcycle to Lorenzo.
Stone was handcuffed and transported to the West Valley Detention Center where he was subjected to a strip search and booked. Stone was denied access to a telephone within three hours of arrest as required by law. After his one initial phone call, Stone was denied access to a telephone for the next eleven days, even after written requests to jail staff, and he was unable to contact an attorney.
During his time in custody Stone claims he was subjected to sexual harassment from other inmates and was in constant fear of being assaulted. When he reported the harassment to jail staff, Stone alleges his complaint was initially ignored and it was suggested by deputies that he should take the other inmate into his cell and fight him.
According to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, deputies must immediately remove an inmate from an abusive situation, pending an investigation.
On July 26, 2016, after more than 23 days in custody, Stone was granted a release on his own recognizance by court order. Stone was required to appear in court four more times. On October 17, 2016 the district attorney dropped the case due to a lack of evidence.
After the criminal case against him was dropped, Stone contacted the Sheriff’s department to report his motorcycle stolen. The responding officer, Deputy Brian Ogas, refused to take a report, stating that it was a civil matter.
Stone pursued the case in small claims court. On December 20, 2016 Lorenzo told Judge David Williams, after he was served with documents to appear in court, that he had sold the motorcycle. Lorenzo was ordered to return the motorcycle or pay $5,065 to Stone.
Stone claims the deputies did not thoroughly investigate the case and ignored evidence to justify arresting him. The three weeks and two days he spent behind bars were a Kafkaesque nightmare, Stone said. He presented the Sentinel with a synopsis of a log he kept during the ordeal. Stone said another inmate began to sexually harass him and that he sought protection from one of the deputies. “The first deputy that I told about the sexual harassment stated I should take him [the inmate harassing Stone] into my cell and fight him. ‘Just do not fight on my shift,’” Stone quoted the deputy as saying. “The next shift came on and the inmate tries to fight me and a custody specialist said over the loud speaker, ‘Don’t don’t do that again or you might get punched in the face again’ to the other inmate. Then on this shift the inmate started groping me and I told a deputy. He said the same thing the last one said. When I demanded a sergeant take my report and make this stop, employee G6214 took a grievance and did not hand it to his sergeant. It got ‘lost.’ I requested another grievance from employee G4153. I was grabbed in my genitals by the other inmate because G6214 told me I had no choice but to go back into my cell. A few hours later I was removed from my cell by G4153 and taken to the protected custody area and spoke to a sergeant, who took pictures of me and then asked me what was going on. He then had me placed in the hole [solitary confinement] for two-and-a-half days before moving me back to the cellblock with the inmate who was touching me. I was told they saw nothing on the video.”
Stone said the interaction he had with the sheriff’s department in the aftermath of Lorenzo’s falsified report bordered on the surreal. “A true title supersedes any other type of document and it supersedes a forged bill of sale,” Stone said. “They said the DMV computer records showed them it was in my name. Then they declined my true title as evidence. The DMV data they accessed showed I was the owner. They completely disregarded that. It seems like they’ve got a grudge against me.”
Objectively, that does seem to be the case. The department has now arrested Stone three additional times, all for being under the influence or in possession of a controlled substance. The district attorney declined two of the cases due to a lack of evidence, after the lab results showed no presence of a controlled substance. The third case was never sent to the district attorney for review. During each of the arrests Stone was handcuffed, transported to West Valley Detention Center, subjected to a strip search and booked, all without any cases being filed.
Stone made a written request to the sheriff’s department for records related to the four arrests. The requests were denied by sheriff’s officials stating that he must obtain a subpoena for the records.
Stone is now purposed to make a civil case of the matter, perhaps a federal one. “I filed tort claims against the county already,” Stone said.
A claim against a governmental entity is a precursor to a lawsuit. The government has the option of accepting or denying the claim. After such a claim is denied, the claimant can move ahead with a civil suit.
“Every time I have attempted to get to the bottom of this situation, I get the run around and a claim that it will be investigated,” Stone said. “Daniel Lorenzo committed several crimes to have me arrested. He forged documents with my signature. He made a false 911 call, gave false information to the police and committed grand theft auto by means of fraud. And since they assisted him and don’t want to involve themselves in ‘a civil matter’ as they claim, why did they involve themselves in the first place if it was a civil matter? They are just engaging in word games. The cardinal sin of a police officer is to lie to the public they are to protect and serve. All they have is their image for trust. They shine a light in my eyes and I blink and then they tell me I’m drunk or drugged up when I’m completely sober. I can’t tell whether this is gross incompetence or corruption. The only way to get them to truthfully state what happened and who did what is to call them out publicly.”
The sheriff’s department declined to discuss any issues relating to Stone or his experience.

Parish’s daisy, known by its scientific name Erigeron parishii as wellas by the moniker Parish’s fleabane, is a plant native to San Bernardino County and Riverside County. It is one of five federally-listed threatened species – along with the Cushenbury buckwheat, Cushenbury milk-vetch, San Bernardino Mountains bladderpd and Cushenbury Oxytheca – losing habitat to development and the limestone mining industry on the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains. Of these five endangered plants, Parish’s daisy is the one that is yet most prolific, with the most numbers and a primary habitat that ranges some 35 miles long covering an estimated 1,029 acres in 50 separate enclaves stretching from San Bernardino County to Riverside County and in a smaller area in the hills around Yucca Valley. There are 16,000 known living Erigeron parishii plants occurring at elevations generally between 3,700 and 6,600 feet, most often in washes and canyon bottoms, but sometimes on alluvial benches or steep rocky mountainsides.
One factor in Erigeron parishii’s favor is it has a relatively high genetic diversity for a narrow endemic. Genetic diversity allows a living organism to adapt to changing environments. With more variation, it is more likely that some individuals in a population will possess variations in its genes that are suited for the environment.
Erigeron parishii is a small perennial herb reaching a maximum height of 12 inches. Its taproot can penetrate the carbonate soils to a depth of 20 inches. This gives the plant the ability to live in and on limestone. Its stem and foliage are covered in silvery-white hairs and most of the leaves are basal and measure from about one inch to less than two-and-a-half inches long.
The erect stems have inflorescences of one to ten flower heads, each between 0.4 inches to 0.8 inches) wide. The flower head has a center of golden yellow disc florets and a fringe of up to 55 lavender, pink, pale rose, or white ray florets, with 30-50 ray flowers per head.
Erigeron parishii usually grows on limestone substrates, or granite topped with a layer of limestone. It apparently requires very alkaline soils.
Parish’s daisy is a long-lived perennial that flowers from May through August, peaking mid-May to mid-June. Based on its conspicuous flowers, pollinators are insects including bees, butterflies and other known pollinators of similar and related species. Parish’s daisy produces plumed achenes adapted for wind dispersal and does not appear to have a seed dormancy mechanism. Based on observations of seedlings at several sites, reproduction is believed to be primarily by seed rather than vegetatively by rhizomes or stolons. There is no evidence of vegetative reproduction, and botanists have concluded that the species probably primarily reproduces sexually through outcrossing.
The same rock that the plant favors – limestone – is also sought after for human use and limestone mining is the most significant threat to its habitat. The primary threats to the plant associated with limestone mining are direct removal of mined materials which displaces the plant entirely, disposal of overburden on adjacent unmined habitat and road construction. Lesser threats include sand and gravel mining, off-highway vehicle use, recreational and urban development, powerline and hydroelectric development, and the loss of pollinators or seed dispersal agents.
Parish’s daisy was named by Asa Gray in 1884 in his Synoptical Flora of North America. It was reported to be “abundant on stony hillsides at Cushenberry Springs” by a botanist with the last name of Hall in 1907.